1

Chapter V
The Concept of Equality in Panca Nikayas

5. 1. Equality and Position of Women in Buddhism

5. 1. 1. Discrimination against Women

Discrimination against women can often be seen in all societies. The biases and
obstacles that women have had to meet and surmount seem almost identical. The
peculiar stigma attached to women all over the world is based on religious bias.
“Woman” is described as a temptress and is warned against in almost all religions in the
world. Woman's basic stigma therefore originates in religion.
In accordance with certain religious mythological concepts, man was appeared
as the son of God, but woman never found a similar standing as the daughter of God.
Some soul-believers held the notion that a soul exists only in man and not in woman.
Those who claimed that woman too had a soul would not give credence to the idea that
her soul could find a place in heaven after death. Such were the strange beliefs amongst
certain religious societies.
Women have also been viewed as the source of all the sins of the world and
have been condemned for the misfortunes of men in this world and the next. There was
also the belief that as women, no salvation could be gained - they had to be reincarnated
as men before they were able to gain their salvation.
Certain fanatical religious cults have also prohibited women from reading the
religious scriptures. The punishment for doing was to have their tongues cut out. They
were also discouraged from entering places of worship. If they were at all allowed to
participate in religious practices, such participation was restricted to their own homes,
by attending to household religious ceremonies. Such hindrances and obstructions in the
matter of moral and spiritual upliftment of women still exist in varying degrees in
certain parts of the world, even though many barriers have been removed.
In contrast to such hindrances and bigoted religious practices, Buddhism can
certainly assert to have the least discriminatory opinions against women.
 2

There is not the slightest doubt that the Buddha was the first religious teacher
who gave women equal and free opportunities in the field of spiritual development.
Although he had pointed out on several occasions the natural tendencies and weakness
of women, he had also given due credit to their abilities and capabilities. He truly paved
the way for women to lead a full religious life. They were able to develop and purify
their minds and realize the bliss of Nibbana just as men were. The evidences of the
Theris (Nuns) in the days of the Buddha speak thoroughly to this fact.
The Buddha opened the gates for the full participation of women in the field of
religion by allowing the Bhikkhuni Sangha (the Order of Nuns).1 that truly opened to
women new paths of culture and social service and ample opportunities for public life.
This carried out women recognition of their importance to society, and significantly
enhanced their social status.

5. 1. 2. Social Attitude to Women at The Time of The Buddha

The social attitude towards women in pre-Buddhist days can be traced from the early
Vedic literature, such as the Rigveda. There is evidence which indicating the honor and
respect which women received in their homes. In the realm of religion, too, they had
access to the highest knowledge of the Absolute or Brahma. However, such a liberal
attitude towards women changed with the course of time, under the influence and
dominance of the priestly caste with their priest crafts, animal sacrifices, and other
ritualistic practices. New interpretations were given to the scriptures. Women came to
be regarded as greatly inferior to men both in physically and mentally.
A woman was looked down upon as a mere possession or a thing. Her place was
the home under desires of her husband. She not only had to perform all the domestic
housework, but also had to bring up a family. Some of the priestly caste Brahmins
married and lived with their wives, yet regarded food cooked by women as impure and
unfit to eat. A myth was built up - that all women were regarded as sinful and the only
way to keep them out of mischief was to keep them endlessly occupied with the duty of
motherhood and domestic responsibilities.
If a married woman had no children or failed to produce any male offspring, she
might be superseded by another wife; for there was the strong belief that there must be a
male child for the continuance of family line and the performance of the 'rites of the

1
AN, III, p. 282-280
 3

ancestors'. The traditional belief was that only a son could carry out such rituals, which
were thought to be very necessary for bringing peace and security to the father and
grandfather after their death. Otherwise, they might return as ghosts to harass the
family. Uncertain were the lives of married women. No less uncertainty awaited the
unmarried ones. As marriage was considered a holy sacrament, a young girl who did not
marry was badly criticized and blamed by society.
In the field of religious practices, the position once enjoyed by women was
denied to them. A woman was believed unable to go to heaven through her own merits.
She could not worship by herself, and it was believed that she could only reach heaven
through unquestioning obedience to her husband, even if he happened to be a wicked
person. The food left over by her husband was often the food for the woman.1
It was in the midst of such extreme social discrimination and degrading
positions of women that the Buddha made his appearance in India. His teachings on the
real nature of life and death - about Kamma (action) and Samsara (wanderings), gave
rise to considerable changes in the social attitudes towards women in his days.
According to what the Buddha taught about the Law of Kamma, one is
responsible for one's own action and its effect. The well-being of a father or grandfather
does not depend upon the action of the son or grandson. They were responsible for their
own actions. Such enlightened teachings helped to correct the views of many people
and naturally reduced the anxiety of women who were unable to produce sons to
perform the 'rites of the ancestors'.
In the early period of Buddhism, an unmarried girl could go along, unabused,
contented and adequately occupied in caring for parents and younger brothers and
sisters. She might even become the owner of great possessions and rich fields; as did
Subha, the daughter of a goldsmith, during the time of the Buddha. But when the
Dhamma was taught to her by Mahapajapati Gotamī, Subha realized the nature of all
fleeting pleasures and that 'silver and gold lead neither to peace nor to enlightenment',
with the result that she entered the Order of Buddhist Nuns.2 This act was a great boon
to unmarried women.
The teachings of the Buddha had done a great deal to extinguish many
superstitious beliefs and meaningless rites and rituals, including animal sacrifices, from
the minds of many people. When the true nature of life and death and the natural

1
http://www.buddhistvihara.com/newsletters/2003-winter/status_of_women.htm (December 9, 2018)
2
Thig, p. 339-367
 4

phenomena governing the universe were revealed to them, wisdom and understanding
arose. This helped to arrest and correct the prevailing social inequalities and prejudices
that were rampant against women in the days of the Buddha. Thus, was enable women
to lead their own way of life.

5. 1. 3. The Buddha’s advice to married Women

About advices to married women, the Buddha appreciated that the peace and harmony
of a home rested largely on women's shoulders. His advice was realistic and practical
when he quoted a good number of day-to-day characteristics which a woman should or
should not emulate. On varied occasions, the Buddha advised married women that a
wife should:
(a) not harbor evil thoughts against her husband;
(b) not be cruel, harsh or domineering;
(c) not be a spendthrift but should be economical and live within her means;
(d) guard and save her husband’s hard-earned earnings and property;
(e) always be attentive and chaste in mind and action;
(f) be faithful and harbor no thought of any adulterous acts;
(g) be refined in speech and polite in action;
(h) be kind, industrious and hardworking;
(i) be thoughtful and compassionate towards her husband and her attitude should
equate that of a mother loving and protecting her son;
(j) be modest and respectful;
(k) be cool, calm and understanding, serving not only as a wife but also as a friend
and adviser to her husband when the need arises.1
In the days of the Buddha, other religious teachers also spoke about the duties and
obligations of a wife towards her husband, particularly stressing the duty of wives in
bearing off-spring for their husbands, rendering faithful service, and providing conjugal
happiness and heavenly bliss. This view is also shared by Confucianism. However,
although the duties of a wife towards the husband were laid down in the Confucian code
of discipline, it did not stress the duties and obligations of the husband towards the wife.
The teachings of the Buddha did not have such bias towards the husbands

1
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammananda/marriage.html (December 21, 2018)
 5

Other useful advice was also given to women on different occasions and under
different circumstances.

5. 1. 4. The Buddha’s advice to beauty conscious women

For the vain and beauty conscious, the Buddha taught the lesson of impermanence.
Khemā who was the beautiful consort of King Bimbisara was reluctant at first to see the
Buddha as she had heard that the Buddha used to refer to external beauty in rather
disparaging terms.
One day she had a casual visit to the monastery merely to enjoy the landscape of
the place. Gradually she was attracted to the hall where the Buddha was preaching. The
Buddha, through his psychic powers, read her thoughts, and created a vision of a young
lady standing in front of her. Khemā was admiring her beauty when the Buddha
transformed the created image from youth to middle age and subsequently to old age,
till it finally fell on the ground with broken teeth, gray hair and wrinkled skin. This
transformation caused Khemā to realize the vanity of external beauty and to appreciate
the fleeting nature of life. She thought "Has such a body come to be wrecked like that?
Then so will my body also." With this, realization dawned upon her. She subsequently
attained Arahatship, and with the King's consent, she entered the Order of Bhikkhuni.1

5. 1. 5. The Buddha’s advice to emotional women

The Buddha spoke on the inevitability of death to women who were unduly emotional
and grief-stricken on the loss of their beloved ones, as enunciated in the Four Noble
Truths, and quoted various teachings and parables to drive in the point.
To Visākha, a deeply emotional and affectionate grandmother who lost her
granddaughter, the Buddha consoled her as follows:
"From affection springs grief,
from affection springs fear,
for one who is wholly free from affection,
there is no grief, much less fear."2
On one occasion, when Kisāgotamī3 who had lost her only newborn son approached the
Buddha to bring back her son to life, she was requested to bring some mustard seed

1
Ap, p. 544-550
2
Dh, p. 33
3
DhA, I, p. 272-276
 6

from a home where no death had taken place. The lady could find the mustard seed but
she could not find a family where death had not previously occurred; hence realization
came to her that death did not afflict her child alone but was a common phenomenon to
all living beings.
Paṭācāra1 was another disastrous case. She had lost her two children, her
husband, her parents and her brother under very tragic circumstances. She was mad with
grief and was running about in the streets. On meeting the Buddha, she was consoled as
follows:
"There are no sons for one's protection, neither father nor even kinsmen for one
who is overcome by death. No protection is to be found among kinsmen.
Realizing this fact, let the virtuous and wise person swiftly clear the way that
leads to Nibbana."2
Hearing the Buddha's consoling speeches, and appreciating the nature of life, she
attained the first stage of sainthood and entered the Order of Nuns. Thus, The Buddha
helped also emotional women by teaching dhamma or consoling their sufferings.

5. 1. 6. Religious freedom for Women

The establishment of the Bhikkhuni Sangha (the Order of Nuns) in the 5th year of the
Buddha's ministry, really paved the way for religious freedom for women in the days of
the Buddha. It was a marvelous success. There arose many famous nuns who shone
brilliantly in the study and practice of the Dhamma. In the eyes of the world, Buddhism
was raised to a very high level. Therīgāthā (The Psalms of the Sisters) containing 77
verses by respective nuns is one of the prides of Buddhist literature.
The Buddha did not place any restrictions in the matter of teaching and
preaching of the Dhamma in regard to the nuns. The Bhikkhuni Order produced a
remarkable number of brilliant preachers and exponents of the Dhamma e.g. Sukha,
Patacara, Khema, Dhammadinna and Mahapajapati (the step-mother of the Buddha).
Women under Buddhism had the liberty to lead a self-determining life and go about
their own business. The Buddha also helped to raise their status in secular life as well by
granting women an active share in the religious life.
However, the admission of women into the Order of Nuns was a step too
advanced for the period and became short-lived. Whenever an innovation or

1
Ibid, p. 261-270
2
Ap, p. 559
 7

improvement was in advance of the thinking and development of a people during a

particular era, the people were unable to adapt themselves to the improved conditions
and tended to regress back to the society that they were used to. They failed to master
the situation. Antagonistic propaganda by the Brahmins who found their caste system
was also a factor that caused the decline of the Order.
In Sri Lanka, the Order of Nuns flourished till 1017 A.C. in the reign of King
Mahinda IV. It then disappeared and was not revived again. But the Order of Nuns was
introduced into China by Sinhalese nuns, and still exists there as well as in Japan today.1

5. 1. 7. The Ordination of Women

As noted, for some time, the Sangha was composed only of men. But eventually
women, whose presence had been abjured as a hindrance to practice were admitted into
the community of practitioners. It is easy to imagine the various problems that arose
from this.
There are number of different narratives depicting the process by which women
came to be ordained into the community of believers. The first group of nuns to be
ordained is said to have been 20 women led by the Buddha’s step mother,
Mahāpajāpati Gotamī. Mahāpajāpati nursed and raised the Buddha after his mother,
Māyā, died just one week after giving birth to him. Her son Nanda also entered into the
Saṃgha Order and when her husband King Suddhodana died, she went to the Buddha
who was then residing in the outskirts of Kapilavastu, the capital of Shakya Kingdom,
and expressed her desire to join him. The Buddha rejected her request three times,
saying that this was something she must not do or even consider. Having had her
request refused by the Buddha, Mahāpajāpati followed him, making the hard journey to
Vesālī where is far about 200 kilometers distant. She requested permission again to join
the Sangha as an ordained nun and was again refused by the Buddha. This time it was
Ānanda, one of the Buddha’s ten major disciples said to be first in hearing the Dharma,
who took pity on her and asked, “Lord Buddha! Are not men and women the same and
their ability to reach the state of Arahat (enlightenment)?” The Buddha responded by
acknowledging that they were. Ānanda followed up by suggesting that there should be
no reason to deny women’s admission into the Sangha. At this point, the Buddha had no
reason not to grant the women’s request. However, there were eight conditions (the

1
http://www.buddhistvihara.com/newsletters/2003-winter/status_of_women.htm (December 7, 2018)
 8

eight Garudhammas or heavy rules) attached to the ordination of women. Most of these
monks. Further, whereas there were 250 precepts for monks, the lives of nuns were to
be guided by 348 precepts.1
However, here it is important to reaffirm the core thread of human equality and
nondiscrimination that runs through Buddhism and Buddhist teaching, which asserts a
fundamental equality, unaffected by such factors as birth, class, sex or class. This can be
collected from the following words of Sutta Nipata:
“Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one
becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.”2
This is a truly dramatic assertion in a society that at the time was structured around a
caste system in which Brahmin occupied the preeminent place. This egalitarian
philosophy, transcending all distinctions of class and caste, exerted a strong appeal
among the non-elite majority of the populace. The Buddhist Sangha was likewise
governed by an egalitarian ethos, in which the most important factor determining
respect was the number of years that had passed since a person’s full ordination.
Whatever their respective social backgrounds, a junior in faith was expected to rise and
bow in reverent greeting to a senior.
The equality of men’s and women’s capacity to realize religious enlightenment
can be confirmed in the discussion cited above regarding the ordination of women. It is
also apparent in these words of the Buddha. “If any woman or man goes in this
direction, he or she approaches Nibbāna in this vehicle.”3
In the India of the time, women were subjected to the control of their families
and husbands; their existence as individuals was bestowed only slight recognition. In
contrast to this background, the opportunity afforded by Buddhism to leave their
families and seek personal salvation was truly revolutionary. This is not to say that all
forms of actual discrimination were eradicated. But we can see the aspiration toward
equality within early Buddhism, despite the constraints of the era.

5. 1. 8. Equality of Enlightenment Attainment

At the present time, many religious people wish to claim that their religions give women
equality. The present work only has to look at the world around us today to see the

1
AN, III, (Gotamī Sutta) p. 274. ANA, III, p. 133
2
Sn, p. 23
3
SN, III, p. 26
 9

status of women in societies. It seems that they do not have property rights, are
discriminated in various fields and generally suffer abuse in many subtle forms. Even in
western countries, women like the Suffragettes had to fight very hard for their rights.
According to Buddhism, it is not reasonable to regard women as inferior. The Buddha
Himself was born as a woman on several occasions during His previous births in
Saṃsāra and even as women. He developed the noble qualities and wisdom until He
gained Enlightenment or Buddhahood.
After the death of King Suddhodana, Mahāpajāpati Gotamī asked the Buddha
permission for women to enter the Order. The Buddha refused that request three times.
Whatever religion women are ordained, that religion will not last long. As families that
have more women than men are easily destroyed by robbers, as a plentiful rice-field
once infested by rice worms will not long remain, as a sugarcane field invaded by red
rust will not long remain, even so the True Dharma will not last long.
Then Ven. Ananda asked, “Are women capable of realizing the state of
Arahantship?” and Buddha replied, “Yes”. Ven. Ananda made another request on behalf
of Mahāpajāpati Gotamī and, Buddha granted the request on condition that she
accepted eight rules (Attha Garudhamma - Heavy Rules). The most cited evidence of
gender bias in the early texts where reportedly imposed by the Buddha as he established
the Nuns’ Sangha. They are recorded in the Vinaya as follows:
1. A nun who has been ordained even for a hundred years must greet
respectfully, rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage
to a monk ordained but that day.
2. A nun must not spend the rains in a residence where there are no monks
3. Every half month a nun should desire two things from the Order of Monks:
the asking as to the date of the uposatha day, and the coming for the exhortation.
4. After the rains a nun must invite before both Orders in respect of three
matters, namely what was seen, what was heard, what was suspected.
5. A nun, offending against an important rule, must undergo manatta discipline
for half a month before both Orders.
6. When, as a probationer, she has trained in the six rules for two years, she
should seek higher ordination from both Orders.
7. A Monk must not be abused or reviled in any way by a nun.
 10

8. From today, admonition of monks by nuns is forbidden, admonition of nuns

by monks is not forbidden.1
The Buddha did not allow the women to become the monk at first, but after he saw the
firmly requirement of Mahāpajāpati Gotamī and her ability to attain the enlightenment.
Then Buddha permitted the women to become the monk, but the Buddha known that if
the women are ordained, the religion will not last long as same as families having more
women than men easily destroyed by robbers, as a plentiful rice-field once infested by
rice worms will not long remain, as a sugarcane field invaded by red rust will not long
remain, even so the true Dharma will not last long. To protect the religious, the Buddha
offer the Garudhamma to the women to practice, then the religious will be last long.
The Buddha’s hesitation was owing to the fact that he had to consider very
carefully the implications of such a move. He had to balance the cultural background of
the society, the attitudes of the people, and his concern not to endanger the Sangha by
an unwise step, with the logical equality of men and women which flowed from the
Dhamma. He felt that women were less able to deal with the tribulations of the daily
secular life in a society ordered by men. He therefore bound the Bhikkhunī Order by
special rules in order to strengthen the former. The Buddha is recorded as having said
that the Sangha would not last for so long, as it would otherwise, because women had
been admitted to the Order, but Dr Horner indicates the possibility of Bhikkhus editing
the statement to decrease the importance which Buddha gave to women. Further
statements in the Buddhist scriptures, that a woman cannot become a Buddha or attain
the higher realms of Enlightenment 8 have to be accepted with caution for the same
reason, and would certainly go against the central ideas of the Dhamma. The Bhikkhunī
Order, once established, flourished. The membership came from the whole range of the
social structure and included Yasodharā. Mahāpajāpati Gotamī Therī was the most
senior. Khemā and Uppalavanna were the two chief Bhikkhuni disciples. Buddhist
literature contains the Therīgatha, psalms or verses of seventy-three elder Bhikkhunis,
Bhikkhunī-Samyutta, more verses of ten elders and the Apadāna, the biographies in
verse of forty nuns contemporary with the Buddha, which are unique in the religious
literature of the world 10. Both Bhikkus and Bhikkunīs wore similar dress, engaged in
the same activities and aspired to teach the Dhamma and attain Arahantship11. Some

1
AN, III, p. 276
 11

Bhikkhunīs like Dhammadinna and Bhaddakappilani were famous exponents of the

Dhamma.
When the Buddha allowed women to join the Order, a large number of women
welcomed the opportunity given to women for the first time in Indian history. Some
wanted to join the Order escape the dreadful life of having to remain in the kitchen for
most of their time, some wanted to escape from a meaningless life of widowhood, and
some were doing it as a fashion, or simply followed their close relatives. In the latter
case, some of them proved to be trouble for the Sangha, but for most of the cases, these
women were sincere in their spiritual search as it was the first time, they enjoyed such
freedom.

5. 1. 9. The Buddha’s View of Women

The Buddha’s view of women had been looked briefly. Admonitions to avoid women
are premised on recognition of the power of their sexuality. The Buddha does not
proclaim that women’s capacity to attain enlightenment is inferior to men. Even the
more vigorous rejections of femininity are best understood as warnings to men to avoid
such distractions in their own pursuit of enlightenment.
Carnal desire, one of the fonts of life itself, is shunned. It is easy to imagine the
difficulty this view had gaining acceptance in India with its rich tradition of thinking
about sexual love. Some scholars have suggested that Buddhism’s strict teachings on
this front was one factor hindering its acceptance within Indian society.1
But religious practices requiring sexual abstinence are possible only to those
living in communities of the ordained. This would be difficult if not impossible for lay
women believers in the midst of family life and its complex emotional realities. Early
Buddhism was a religion focused on clerics. While the nuns of the Therīgāthā
collection express their religious confidence and joy, most women lived lives dominated
by men among the sexual and emotional entanglements of secular life. The Buddhist
teaching of equality of enlightenment pertained only to life within the community of the
ordained. It did not change the prevalent perceptions a society as a whole. Following the
Buddha’s passing, there were changes in attitudes toward Buddhist nuns. The Buddha is
recording as saying to his disciple Ānandā that if women had not been ordained, his
teachings would have gained acceptance in society for thousand years, but because

1
Minamoto Junko “Nihon Bukkyo no Sei Sabetsu” (Sexual Discrimination in Japanese Buddhism) in
Ogoshi Aiko, et al. Sei Sabetu Suru Bukkyo (Sexual Discrimination in Buddhism) Hozokan, 1990, p. 92
 12

women were ordained these teachings would only spread for 500 years. A home with
many women is more vulnerable to the predations of Burglars or robbers; in the same
way, in a Sangha with nuns the difficult practices will not long be upheld. But there is
reason to doubt the veracity of this record. It is possible that male monks who did not
welcome the presence of nuns presented their own views as the Buddhist words. Seeing
a community of women believers only as an impediment, they sought to present the
ordination of women as something other than the Buddha’s true intent.
During the Buddha’s lifetime an ideal of gender equality was taught, and within
the confines of an ordained community women were able to attain enlightenment. But
men were the protagonists of the community, and it was they who compiled the sutras,
at times incorporating into them their own views, in the wake of the Buddha’s passing.
Over time, the Buddha’s original spirit was diluted and the ideas of these male monks
were recorded as sutras, generating a philosophy of discriminatory and degrading views
of women that runs counter to this original spirit.

5. 1. 10. Equality of Action (Kamma) in Buddhism

Action or Kamma is the teaching of the Buddha as the Buddhists. The Buddha said that
if one does good, good results will be received and if one does evil, evil results will be
received. This teaching is not to give only men or women, not to give only rich or poor
one, but give for all. The Pāli term Kamma literally means action or doing. Any kind of
intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as kamma. It covers
all that is included in the phrase “thought, word and deed”. Generally speaking, all good
and bad action constitutes Kamma. In its ultimate sense Kamma means all moral and
immoral volition. Involuntary, unintentional or unconscious actions, though technically
deeds, do not constitute Kamma, because volition, the most important factor in
determining Kamma is absent.
I am the owner of my actions (Kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions,
related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I
do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.1
In the view of the Buddha in case of equality of gender, there is no bias on the gender of
His view. Everyone must accept the results of own doing. Everyone can be good
morality or can be bad morality depending on personality, not on gender. Good or bad

1
AN, III, p. 70
 13

morality is depending on their doing or action. For example, when King Kosala was
very disappointed as he heard that his Queen had given birth to a baby girl. He had
expected a boy. To console the sad King, the Buddha said:
“A woman, O lord of the people, may turn out better than a man:
She may be wise and virtuous, A devoted wife, revering her mother-in-law.”
“The son to whom she gives birth, may become a hero, O lord of the land.
The son of such a blessed woman, may even rule the realm.”1
Besides, the Buddha preached about passion; He said that men are equally attractive to women
and a cause for women to go astray. So the Buddha actually talked about removal of passion,
whether it is in males or in females. In Anguttara Nikaya,2 the Buddha delivered that: there is
nothing attractive to a female than the sight of man, voice of man, smell of man, touch of man
and thought of man. A woman should rise above these similarly there is nothing attractive to a
man than the sight of woman, voice of woman, smell of woman, touch of woman and thought of
woman.

5. 1. 11. Equality of Duty in Buddhism

The duty means doing the work or the task. In society, everyone must do the work, and
help each other. The duty starts from family: father, mother and children. They do the
duty each other. Besides, there are many organizations, such as school, temple, hospital,
shop, university and so on. Those of organizations do the duties each other in the social.
The duty of people in the social were done begin in the family. Everyone in the family
do own duty as the member of society, each one must do own task not only in the work
of mother or father but also the children.
The people in the society cannot deny the duties because of the duty is the
helping each other in the society. Especially in the family, the mothers have the role in
caring the children, while the fathers always do the hard work outside of the house. The
children get new experience from the old member of family and also learn from the
educational institution. The duty is the valuable of people in the social, only one cannot
do everything, such as the mother cannot do the work hard like the father do while the
father cannot do the caring of the mother. We cannot say which one is the best. Mothers
or fathers are the best. This is the duty of the member in the family. The members in the
social also are the same, men and women may do the different work. In Buddhism, the
Buddha show the view about the duty such as the duty of teacher and student, duty of

1
Bhikkhu Bodhi, Trans., The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Samyutta Nikaya), Wisdom
Publications, 2000, p. 179.
2
AN, I, p. 1.
 14

wife and husband, duty of parent and children, the duty is the task of the members in the
social. All of them can do the duty on the best. Any one can’t be all things, because it is
impossible for the one people in the social, it depends on the role or duty as they have.
Any one may have more duty, such as someone have the duty as the teacher while have
the duty as the student too.
The Buddha did not say the women cannot do something but He say about the
duty what they have and do. What are the duties of man and the women? This question
varies because it is difficult for answering. There are no answers that what is the duty of
women or the duty of the men. In the past the duty is depend on ability of they do the
duty. The man goes to forest for finding out the food such as hunting the animal, while
the women stay in the house for preparing the food and also take care the children. And
in the city or town, the men do the duties as the soldier while the women do the food
and doing the art and doing the beautiful material such as weaving. The different duties
of men and women are not bias. But it is because the different of ability and appropriate
of the gender, such as the duty of fighting, the man can do the best than the women do.
While, the cooking and taking care the children, the women can do the best than the
man do. This is the appropriate of their ability of man and women. In any relationship,
if one carries out one’s duties and responsibilities well, this will support and bring
happiness to one in this life and hereafter. In the Buddhist scriptures also deal with the
responsibilities of husband and wife specifically, as outlined below. A husband has five
responsibilities towards his wife as follows:
A wife should be respected by a husband-

1) By honoring,
2) Not disrespecting,
3) Being faithful,
4) Sharing authority, and
5) By giving gifts.1

Similarly, a wife has five responsibilities towards her husband as follows:

The wife should respect her husband-

1) By being well-organized,

1
DN, III, p. 190.
 15

2) By being kindly disposed to the in-laws and household workers,

3) By being faithful,
4) By looking after the household goods, and
5) By being skillful and diligent in all duties.1

In equality of men and women in status of spouse, both of them must do the duty and
responsibility each other; otherwise they cannot reach the family happiness. The duty is
important for spouse; wife and husband, without the responsibility to the family, the fail
of their family will be rising. The duty is only different of task but is not inequality
between husband and wife.

5. 2. Equality of Caste in Panca Nikayas

There are many religions in the world. The followers of each religion believe that only
their religion is modern, scientific and relevant for present society, and in order to
confirm their belief or view, they describe evidences in various way including about the
equality of Castes. According to the Pali canon, Buddhism also can give the equality of
castes.

5. 2. 1. Definitions of Caste
The word “caste” or “social class” in Pāḷi means “vaṇṇa” and Sanskrit “varṇa” in which
is generally referred to birth or colour of mankind. It is also defined into various
meanings according to etymology of certain languages that has equal meanings to it.
In Khmer Dictionary by supreme patriarch Chuon Nath, the word “vaääa” is
translated into many meanings and when using as compound nouns it consists of
meaning quite different from the original one. But it is also used to mean “colour,
complexion, light, ray, sex, class or lineage of human”.2
According to Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, the word “caste” is not of
Indian origin. It derived from the Portuguese caste, which means “breed,” “race,” or
“class.” The word in common use amongst the Hindu themselves is jāt or jāti, which
means “birth” or “descent.” Owing to the confusion which often exists in the popular
mind between a caste and its traditional occupation, it is not always easy to say whether

1
Ibid
22
Nath Choun, Supreme Patriarch Samdech Choun Nath, Khmer Dictionary, (Translation into English is
my own work), Vol. I, Phnom Penh, Publication of Buddhist Institute, 1967, p.1155
 16

a given term really indicate a caste, i.e. a separate social group, or is simply a
designation applicable to all persons following some particular occupation. It may
perhaps be defined as ‘an endogamous group, or collection of such groups, bearing a
common name, having the same traditional occupation, claiming descent from the same
source, and commonly regarded as forming a single homogeneous community.’1
According to Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English language,
“caste” is defined as race, lineage, unmixed race, pure, chaste, etc., It also means a race,
stock, or breed of men or animal. The other meaning is one of the hereditary classes into
which the society of India is divided. The caste system is fundamental in Hinduism,
referring to, for its origin at least, to the time of the Aryan invasion of India. Orthodox
Hinduism ascribes to the invaders for castes: the Brahmana, or priestly; kshatriya,
warrior or kingly; the vaisya, mercantile and agricultural; the Sudra, mainly artisan and
labouring. The first three of these are known as the twice-born castes. Their token is the
sacred thread; they are considered as the original Ariyan castes, and they have religious
rites and privileges denied to the sudra, mainly composed of the conquered natives.
Gradually a vast number of castes have been formed; as, on the basis of the occupation
of the persons forming them; by the conversion of foreign tribes to Hinduism, the whole
tribe forming a distinct caste; by religious sectarianism; by intermarriage and
crossbreeding; by migration, etc. all castes are theoretically classified according to the
original scheme of the four and intermarriage and social intercourse, in so far as these
exist, are subject to rigid restrictions. Many of the religious reforms of India have
started as protests against caste restrictions, yet even among the Indian Mohammed
class distinctions similar to the caste system are maintained. The native name for
“caste,” “varnṇa” signifies “colour”, and system seem to have originated in the
endeavour of the light hued Aryans to preserve their racial purity.2
But according to Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabriged Dictionary of the English
Language, caste is known in the following: a) an endogamous and hereditary social
group limited to person of the same rank, occupation, economic position, etc..; and
having more distinguishing it from other such groups. b) Any rigid system of social
distinction.

1
James Hastings, M.A., DD. And T. Clark (ed)., Encyclopaedia of religion and Ethics, volume III, New
York, 1997, p.234
2
William Allan Nellson, Ph.D., Webster New International Dictionary of the English Language, Mass,
USA, 1961, p.418
 17

Any of the social divisions into which Hindu society is traditionally divided,
each having its own privileges and limitations, transferred by inheritance from one
generation to the next. Any class or group of society sharing common cultural features:
low caste; high caste.1
In the Concise Universal Encyclopedia (Vol.2), social system under which every
Hindu is deemed to be born into an endogamous group with a common name and
traditional occupation. These ties are often conjoined with a tradition common origin
and the possession of the same tutelary deity, social status and ceremonial observances.
Modern Indian caste is the outcome of a gradual social development, one
impelling force of which is the communal as opposed to the individualist element in the
Indian mind. Most existing castes are occupational and many the result of economic
factors.2
According to The New Webster’s International Encyclopedia, caste system is
explained as division of society into closed groups, primarily by birth, but usually also
involving religion and occupation. The most caste-bound society today is that of Hindu
India, its caste system, dating from 3000 B.C, was not discouraged until recently.3
Moreover, Varṇa (vaṇṇa) is a Sanskrit term derived from the root vṛ meaning "to
enclose" or "colour". The term, which also means letter, paint, cover, coat, class and
caste, has been used in various contexts in the Hindu scriptures.
In historical Indic traditions the varṇa and caste systems are not the same
system, although they are related. Varṇa and caste systems are believed to have become
related to mean the same thing, as caste, after the Vedic period when the puraṇas and
dharmashastras were written.4

5. 2. 2. Caste and inequality in human society

Wherever there is caste, there is inequality and wherever there is inequality there is
conflict and the pursuit of equality.
In Hinduism claim that Mahābrahma, Mahāprajāpati created all living beings—
human, animals and so forth. First when he created all living beings have no soul, no
lives. They are like corpse able to move, walk, sit or stand, and then the Mahābrahma
1
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabriged Dictionary of the English Language, Thander Bay Press, 2001, p.
323
2
M.G Gale, The concise Universal Encyclopaedia, Volume II, The Amagamted Press LTD, London,
p.370
3
Michael D. Harkavy (ed)., The New Webster’s International Encyclopaedia, p.201
4
“Caste” www.wikipedia.org, free Encyclopedia.com, access date: 18th August, 2009
 18

put his soul into them. So, they have lives and can move, walk, sit and stand. By this
reason, some scholars criticized that if Mahābrahma put his soul into all living beings,
why he discriminated the beings he created in terms of superiority and inferiority based
on inequality like this. If so, it means that he looks down on his own soul for it is from
him and if inside the body of all beings consist of his soul, why all living beings are not
equally important to him.
This is one reason to be considered about the five rules in Brahmin caste: The
Brahmin had not only a theory of an ideal religion as contained in the Vedas but they
also had a theory for an ideal society.
The pattern of this ideal society they named chaturvarna, or catu vanna. It is
imbedded in the Vedas and as the Vedas are infallible and as their authority cannot be
questioned so also Charturvarna as a pattern of society was binding and
unquestionable. This pattern of society was based upon certain rules. The first rule was
that society should be divided into four classes: (1) Brahmin, (2) Kshatriya, (3) Vaishya,
and (4) Shudras. The second rule was that there cannot be social equality among these
four classes. They must be bound together by the rule of graded inequality. The
Brahmin is to be at the top, the kshatriyas to be kept below the Brahmins, but above the
Vaishya, the Vaishya to be below the kshatriyas but above the Shudra and Shudras to be
the lowest of all.
These four classes were not to be equal to one another in the matter of rights and
privileges. The rule of graded inequality governed the question of rights and privileges.
The Brahmins had all the rights and privileges which he wished to claim. But a
Kshatriya could not claim the rights and privileges which a Brahmin could. He had
more rights and privileges than a Vaishya could claim. The Vaishya had more rights and
privileges than a Shudra. But he could not claim the rights and the privileges which a
Kshatriya could. And the Shudra was not entitled to any right, much less any privileges.
His privilege was to subsist without offending the three superior classes.
The third rule of Charturvarna related to the division of occupations. The
occupation of the Brahmin was learning and teaching and performance of religious
observances. The occupation of the Kshatriya was fighting. Trade was assigned to the
vaishyas. The occupations of the Shudras were service of the three superior classes.
These occupations assigned to different classes were exclusive. One class could not
trespass upon the occupation of the other.
 19

The fourth rule of Charturvarna related to the right to education. The pattern of
Charturvarna gave the right to education to the first three classes, the Brahmins, the
kshatriyas and vaishyas. The Shudras were denied the right to education. This rule of
Charturvarna did not deny the right to education to the Shudras only. It denied the right
to education to all women including those belonging to the class of Brahmins,
kshatriyas and vaishyas.
There was a fifth rule. According to it, man’s life was divided into four stages.
The first stage was called brahmacharya; the second stage was called Grahastashram;
the third stage was called Vanaprasta and the fourth stage was called Sannayasa. The
object of the first stage was study and education. The object of the second stage was to
live a married life. The object of the third stage was to familiarize a man with a life of a
hermit, i.e., severing family ties, but without deserting his home. The object of the
fourth stage was to enable a man to go in search of God and seek union with him.
The benefits of these stages were open only to the male member of the three
superior classes. The first stage was not open to the Shudras and women. Equally the
last stage was not open to the Shudras and women.
Such was the divine pattern of an ideal society called Chatturvarna. The
Brahmins had idealised the rule and had realised the ideal without leaving any cracks or
loopholes. The fourth thesis of Brahminic philosophy was the doctrine of Karma. It was
part of the thesis of transmigration of the soul. The Karma of the Brahmins was an
answer to the question: “Where did the soul land on transmigration with his new body
on new birth?” The answer of the Brahminic Philosophy was that it depended on a
man’s deeds in his past life. In other words, it depended on his Karma.
The Buddha was strongly opposed to the first tenet of Brahmanism. He
repudiated their thesis that the Vedas are infallible and their authority could never be
questioned. In his opinion, nothing was infallible and nothing could be final. Everything
must be open to re-examination and reconsideration whenever grounds for re-
examination and reconsideration arise.
Man must know the truth and real truth. To him freedom of thought was the
most essential thing. And he was sure that freedom of thought was the only way to the
discovery of truth. Infallibility of the Vedas meant complete denial of freedom of
thought. For these reasons this thesis of the Brahmanic Philosophy was not obnoxious
to him. He was an equally an opponent of the second thesis of the Brahmnic
Philosophy. The Buddha did admit that there was any virtue in a sacrifice. But he made
 20

a distinction between true sacrifice and false sacrifice. Sacrifice in the sense of self-
denial for the good of others he called true sacrifice. Sacrifice in the sense of killing an
animal as an offering to God for personal benefit he regarded as a false sacrifice. The
Brahmanic sacrifices ware mostly sacrifices of animals to please their gods. He
condemned them as false sacrifices. He would not allow them even though they are
performed with the object of getting salvation for the soul.
The opponents of sacrifices used to ridicule the Brahmins by saying: “If one can
go to heaven by sacrificing an animal why should not one sacrifice one’s own father.
That would be a quicker way of going to heaven.” The Buddha wholeheartedly agreed
with this view. The theory of Chaturvarna was as repugnant to the Buddha as the theory
of sacrifices was repulsive to him. The organisation of society set up by Brahmanism in
the name of Chaturvarna did not appear to him a natural organisation. Its class
composition was compulsory and arbitrary. It was a society made to order. He preferred
an open society and a free society. The Chaturvarna of the Brahmins was a fixed order
never to be changed. Once, a Brahmin is always a Brahmin. Once, a Kshatriya always a
Kshatriya, Once, a Vaishya is always a Vaishya and once a Shudra always a Shudra.
Society was based on status conferred upon an individual by the accident of his birth.
Vice, however heinous, was no ground for degrading a man from his status, and virtue,
however great, had not value to raise him above it. There was no room for worth nor for
growth.
Inequality exists in every society. But it was different with Brahmanism. The
inequality preached by Brahmins was its official doctrine. It was not a mere growth.
Brahmanism did not believe in equality. In fact, it was opposed to equality.
Brahmanism was not content with inequality. The soul of Brahmanism lay in graded
inequality. Far from producing harmony, graded inequality, the Buddha thought, might
produce in society an ascending scale of hatred and a descending scale of contempt, and
might be a source of perpetual conflict.
The occupations of the four classes were also fixed. There was no freedom of
choice. Besides, they were fixed not in accordance with skill but in accordance with
birth. On a careful review of the rules of Chaturvarna the Buddha had no difficulty in
coming to the conclusion that the philosophic foundations on which the social order was
reared by the Brahmanism were wrong if not selfish. It was clear to him that it did not
serve the interests of all; much less did it advance the welfare of all. Indeed, it was
deliberately designed to make many serve the interests of the few. In it man was made
 21

to serve a class of self-styled supermen. It was calculated to suppress and exploit the
weak and to keep them in a state of complete subjugation.
The law of Karma as formulated by the Brahmins, thought the Buddha, was
calculated to sap the spirit of revolt completely. No one was responsible for the
suffering of man except he himself. Revolt could not alter the state of suffering; for
suffering was fixed by his past Karma as his lot in this life. The Shudras and women-
the two classes whose humanity was most mutilated by Brahmanism had no power to
rebel against the system. They were denied the right to knowledge with the result that
by reason of their enforced ignorance they could realize what had made their condition
so degraded. They could not know that Brahmanism had robbed them completely of the
significance of their life. Instead of rebelling against Brahmanism they had become the
devotees and upholders of Brahmanism.1
The hierarchy of caste imposed by the Brahmins on society divided humans into
mutually exclusive units as if generally determined. Intermarriage between any two
castes were taboo and heavy penalties were imposed on both partners. Exploitation and
discrimination against the ‘lower’ caste therefore resulted in denying many ways:
1) the denial of political opportunities
2) the denial of economic opportunities
3) the denial of social opportunities
4) the denial of educational opportunities
5) the denial of religious freedom
6) the denial of justice and equality before the law.2
The practical outcome of such beliefs and attitudes was, in the case of racism,
discrimination against and the exploitation of the ‘lower’ castes.
For Buddhism states that ignorance is the root of all evils. The Buddha did not
want all human either men or women to become his disciples blindly without
questioning or investigating his teachings. They can study and observe carefully before
they believe in Buddhism. No one is deprived of right and privilege to do so. Some
persons said what the use of demanding right is if one cannot know and maintain the
right. The rules of Brahmanism towards shudras and women are injustice and women or
people belong to this caste are lost freedom of capacity. Capacity without freedom is

1
Dr.B.R. Ambadkar, The Buddha and His Dhamma, Buddha Bhoomi Publication, Nagpur, 1997, pp.87,
92
2
Ven. Pategama Gnanarama, An Approach to Buddhist Social Philosophy, Second Edition, Singapore,
2005, p.72
 22

meaningless, and such society will become puppet because men have no right of choice
to do any work as they wish.
Buddhism is a religion of choice, a religion of freedom of thought and justice.
The right to belief, education and equality, etc., in Buddhism is open to all mankind
both men and women in the world. For men and women are equally important to
Buddhism. Caste system is not a main target of Buddhism. “Mindfulness, wisdom and
also effort are neither men nor women.”4 “the essence of life is not based on caste or
any gender.’’1
Needless to mention of caste, colour, race or creed, all men and women have
equal right to spiritual growth according to Buddhism. Like human right claims all
human are equally in front of law. It means all men both genders equal right for
intellectual force, not physical force. For physical forces men and women can be
different from one to another. Men are mostly stronger than women in the province of
physical force. But for intellectual force both men and women are equally in quality.
For example, a man is able to be prime minister in a country. A woman also can become
a prime minister if she is qualified for that position in the sense of intellectual force.
Therefore, Buddhism and human right encourage equality and upgrade moral and
spiritual development. Caste prejudice and inequality bring about nothing but suffering
to human kind.

5. 2. 3. Equality in human society according to Buddhism

Equality is one of human right laws which are recognised by international community
as well as in Buddhism. That is why to understand Buddhism and human right is
important.
It is generally believed that the Buddha was a great social reformer, a believer in
the equality of all human beings, a democrat and that his efforts for the emancipation of
women and lower castes created a sort of social revolution in society. In order to
evaluate this belief and find out whether or not the Buddha was a social revolutionary
we should (i) not only analyse his stand on the various social problems of his time
dispassionately, but also (ii) compare his ideas with the contemporary thinkers and
religious leaders, and (iii) also compare them with the ideas of the thinkers of the

1
Buth Savong, Women in Buddhism, Khmer Language, 2006, p.78
 23

preceding age. Without undertaking the last two exercises it will not be possible to
determine whether or not he possess something ‘revolutionary’ in his social life.
A proof generally advanced in support of the view that the Buddha was a social
revolutionary is based on the assumption that he attacked the caste system as it existed
at that time. According to Ambadker, “No caste, no inequality, no superiority: all are
equal. That is what he (that is the Buddha) stood for.” Rhys Davids has stressed that
Buddhism “ignores completely and absolutely all advantages arising from birth,
occupation or social status and a sweep way all barriers and disabilities arising from the
arbitrary rules of mere ceremonial or social impurity.” According to some recent
historian Buddhism produced the only consciously egalitarian social philosophy in
ancient India and Buddha professed commitment to human equality was nothing short
of a revolution. We, however, feel that this assumption is only marginally correct. The
belief that Buddha believed in social equality of men is as much untrue as the theory
that he believed in the social equality of both sexes.1
These ideas are just derived from analytical study and explanation of some
worldly scholars related with the concept of “equality” in Buddhism and Human Right.
Concerning this case, some persons do not place confidence on human right
organization at all. They said, in human right there is also human wrong. So, they do not
believe in it. They said human right is very funny. It is like big fish eat the small fish.
However, this is one of the declarations of human right in Article seven which is
applicable and accepted by almost societies. It is stated thus:
All are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to equal
protection of the law. All are entitled equal protection against any discrimination
in violation of this declaration and against any incitement to such
discrimination.2
Concerning “Equality” in human right, a novelist also wrote metaphorically to the
“Equality” in animal right thus: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal
than others. Whatsoever, to have law is better than not having law. The concept of
“Equality” should be understood by two meanings, that is, (1) equality in secular way
which is applied for right, freedom, equality and justice of a society. And (2) equality in
religious or righteous way, which is referred to equality in accordance with natural law

1
Nagendra Kr. Singh (ed)., International Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol. 33, Anmol Publication PVT
LTD, p. 4435-4436
2
L.P.N. Perera, Buddhism and Human Right, Kularatne Mawatha, Solombo, 1991, p. 4
 24

such as the law of kamma and so on. Here is the explanation of what equality really
means from both secular and religious views of law which is reasonable and helpful for
all of living beings in society.
In the Buddhist context the notion of equality before the law springs from two
considerations. The first is the fundamental assumption of the basic equality of
all human beings in respect of their essential nature as a consequence of which
they are equal regarding their dignity and rights. The second is based on the
legal argument that all individuals, whatever be their caste or social position, are
punishable with the same kind and degree of punishment, if held liable for an
infringement of the law.
Equality before the law implies equal protection by the law which in turn
connotes the total absence of any form of discrimination. The entire concept of
equal protection under the law is covered by the Buddhist expression
dhammikaṃ rakkhāvaraṇaguttiṃ (meaning "righteous care and protection')
which is expected of the "world ruler" and spelt out in Buddhist social thought
by the terms dhammacariyā and samacariyā. Literally these words imply
"righteous conduct" and "impartial conduct" on the part of the ruler or the State
towards citizens or subjects. While the first of these terms can be said to mean
equal protection under the law dispensed by righteous conduct on the part of
those in power, the second conveys the concept of the absence of all
discrimination in view of the claim to equal protection under the law.
This Article has a similar objective, in this case related specifically to the "Rule
of Law". Therefore, the denial in theory, or in practice, of the principle of
equality before the law and equal protection not only under the law but also
against any discrimination in the dispensation of the law, will not be
countenanced by Buddhism.1
Moreover, there are a lot of books explain about equality written by Buddhist and non-
Buddhist scholars. Paddmasiri de Sila in her book, “Buddhism, Ethics and Society” is
explained more about equality in the following way:
The Buddha was not concerned about the transformation of society; it only
means that his approach to social concerns had logic of its own, as does the analysis of
concepts such as freedom, equality and justice. In a very deep sense, the need to be

1
Ibid. p. 44
 25

respected as a human person and the ability to respond to others provides the most basic
moral and psychological foundations for Buddhist reflections on equality.
Men and woman are considered as equal in having these potentialities, and in
the case of compassion, a mother’s feeling towards a child are taken as the paradigmatic
expression of human compassion. Egalitarianism, of course, does not always assert
equality but rather denies the justice of some inequality in treatment based on irrelevant
traits. In this context, the dimensions of equality in relation to race, caste, sex, and so on
are important.
The Buddhist concept of equality has a strong link with the notion of
righteousness (dhamma), which may be rendered for the Western student as justice, but
yet in a narrow sense it is a Buddhist concept of justice or, in a broader sense, a notion
of justice embedded in the Hindu-Buddhist world view. The interlocking relations
between justice and equality have been a subject of great interest in studies of equality
in the West. In early Greek thought, for instance, the world dike (which came to mean a
person’s due share) contained the concept of equality, thus showing an interesting link
between justice and equality. In the Buddhist context we have shown the strong link
between righteousness and equality in relation to the way a sovereign should govern;
dhammena and samena are used to describe the qualifications of an ideal ruler.
The Buddhist perspective on equality is basically orientated towards the person
as a free and rational moral agent. Treating persons as equals in this respect indicates
that we value common human potentialities. The moral imperative to treat others in the
same way as one would wish oneself to be treated assumes that we are in certain ways
equal. This perspective is rooted in our deep capacity for benevolence and compassion.
A similar argument is found in the Madhura sutta1, where it is said that wealthy
people, irrespective of caste, will find members of other castes willing to wait upon
them and serve them. It is interesting to find the Buddha using this kind of argument.
He is not saying that wealth should be the norm that divides people, but merely that in
actual situations, birth and colour (vaṇṇa) recede to the background in the face of
wealth.
The example that wealth influences social relations is strengthened by three
other arguments: a wicked person (whatever his or her vaṇṇa), in accordance with the
law of kamma, will be born in a bad place and a good person in a state of bliss;

1
MN, II, p. 83-91
 26

criminals, regardless of vaṇṇa, will be equally subject to punishment; and whatever a

man’s vaṇṇa, if he joins the order, he will receive equal respect and honour from
people. 1
So, we can assimilate this case by comparing with the example in the following
way, “If one has four sons by one wife, the four sons, having one father and mother,
must all be essentially alike. Among quadrupeds, births, trees, we see differences of
conformation and organization whereby we can separate them into distinct species. But
all men are formed a like without and within, except in such non-essential differences as
are observed in the children of one and the same parents. It is therefore evidence that all
men belong to one species. Further in a jack- tree the fruit is produced from the stem,
the joints and roots as well as the branches. Is one fruit therefore different from another
so that we may call that produced from the roots the Sūdra fruit? Surely not; nor can
men be of four distinct species, because, as the Brahmins assert, they sprang from four
different parts of one body. Besides, a Brahman’s sense of pleasure and pain is not
different from that of Chandāla. Both are born in the same way, both sustain life in the
same manner, and both suffer death from the same causes. They differ neither in
intellectual faculties nor in their actions, nor in the aims they pursue, nor in their
subjection to fear and hope. Accordingly, the talk of four castes is fatuous. All men are
of one caste.”2
Furthermore, we should know in deeper sense on equality of human beings from
Buddhist point of view. When one studies Abhidhamma in Buddhism, one will find it
that, everybody has already had wrong view (diṭṭhhi) since his or her birth and wisdom
(amoha) is also included in everyone except Dvihetuka puggala who has two roots:
Alobha (non-greed; generosity) and Adosa (non-hatred; good will; loving-kindness.
This is the equality of human beings of (different castes) and different faiths such as
Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Based on understanding of this quality, we
can find the real peace in our mentality and materiality. So, all human beings by nature
are equal.

1
Padmasiri de Silva, Buddhism, Ethics and Society, the Conflicts and dilemmas of our times, pp.120,127
2
P Lakshminarasu, The Essence of Buddhism, p.81
 27

5. 2. 4. Buddhist rationalistic views on caste system

Buddhist rationalistic view about caste system is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, but
to give complete right nor freedom to humans in both genders from all castes, creeds
and colours to seek the truth.
“Buddha’s rationalistic spirit is evident not only in his philosophical discussions
but also in his examinations of the popular beliefs and customs, e.g. his attitude towards
the caste system and the discrimination based on caste as giving a right to the
knowledge of the truth. Buddha held that a person irrespective of caste or age is entitled
to search for the truth and follow the path prescribed leading to the same and that the
pride of caste is baseless as men, whether Kshatriya, Brahmana, vaiśya or sūdra, are
born in the same way, are composed of the same earthly materials and subject to the
common frailties of the human beings (such as birth, decay, disease and death). What
distinguishes one man from another is his quality, and not the accident of his birth (na
jacca hoti brahmaṇo). Hence a person, whether a brahman or sūdra, is equally entitled
to practice brahmacariya and other disciplinary rules at any stage of his life and realize
the truth.”1
In Buddhism, there many truths, however, to understand four Noble truths is
important. The four Noble truths are: (1) the truth of suffering, that is, the five
aggregates, (2) the truth of the origin of suffering, that is, craving, (3) the truth of the
cessation of suffering, that is the cessation of craving, and (4) the truth of the path
leading to the cessation of the suffering, that is, the Eightfold Noble path. In this case, if
one is ignorant of the four Noble truths, one cannot become an Anāgāmī or an Arahanta.
Moreover, if one just knows the four Noble truths with merely theories, he also cannot
attain the state of being Anāgāmī or Arahanta. Only when one realized the four Noble
Truths through experiential level in the practice of insight meditation, then he can
become such Noble states and free from many kinds of troubles and suffering in this
world even in social life. The Buddha shows us the way to release ourselves from
slavery of craving within the very four Noble Truths. According to Buddha, human
beings are suffered from slavery of others only in this life, but if he is a slave of craving,
he will suffer endlessly again and again in the round of rebirth. So, the five aggregates
are the truth of suffering that should be known. Craving (taähà) is the true cause of
suffering that should be abandoned. The extinction of craving is the true cause of the

1
Nagendra Kr. Singh (ed)., International Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol.21, Anmol Publication PVT
LTD, India, 1997, pp.752-753
 28

cessation of suffering that should be realised, and Eightfold Noble path is the truth of
the path leading to the cessation of suffering that should be practised or followed.
Therefore, those who want to free from slavery in this world should practise insight
meditation to realise the four Noble Truths and become Arahants. For instance, Punna
Therī was born in Anāthapindika’s household, as the daughter of a domestic slave. She
was called Punna because, with her birth, the number of children in the household
reached one hundred. On the day, on which she heard the Sihanāda sutta1 preached by
the Buddha, she became a Sotāpanna, and thereby won the esteem of Anāthapindika, so
that he freed her. Thereupon, she entered the Order and in due course (of her realising
the truth) became an Arahant. So here we can say that Punna Therī could free herself
from the slave of craving as well as slave of other in her social life.

5. 3. Buddhist approaches to solve caste problem

Secular solution of caste problem is to stop it according to constitutional law in
particular nation and force all men to abide by that law. In Buddhism, the Order is
established and all people from all castes who enter into it must follow the Dhamma and
Vinaya taught by the Buddha and live harmoniously without discrimination under the
same roof.

5. 3. 1. Castes and the Saṃgha Order

Many persons may wonder whether there is caste system in Buddhism or not. If it exists
in Buddhist community or in any Buddhist country, they think that it is against the
teachings of the Buddha because the Buddha did not accept caste system in the Order.
So, caste system should not exist in Buddhism.
The answer to this can be given briefly, since Buddhism tried to establish a
spiritual order, which is not for this world, it does not claim to be protagonist of
social reforms. It is a common error to believe that the Buddha wished to destroy
the caste system in India; he did not interfere with the social order as it existed,
when he laid down that caste differences should no longer be observed within
his order. This was no innovation, for this principle was observed among other
Indian ascetic.2

1
AN, II, p. 418
2
Nagendra Kumar Singh, (Ed), International Encyclopaedia Of Buddhism, Vol.16, Anmol Publication
PVT LTD, India, 1997, p.25
 29

Concerning this case, some argument that Gotama’s objectives were not of this world,
and the Buddha was not a social reformer. The theory much trumpeted about the role of
Buddha as a social reformer was discarded by a galaxy of scholars. Most of them have
decidedly proved that Buddha had never discarded caste system. ‘Buddha did not attack
caste directly, yet in his own orders he did not recognize it, and there is no doubt that
his whole attitude and activity weakened caste system.’1
The Blessed One’s concerted campaign against caste-system needs no narration.
The doors of his Saṃgha were open to all irrespective of status in the society. He said
each and every man or woman by dint of his or her endeavor is capable of attaining
Nirvāna. Not only that, he took practical steps of eradicate this evil. These steps were:
His emphasis on not to accept anything unreasonable simply because it was recorded in
the scriptures or was upheld by other authorities, exposing the myth of hereditary
superiority by dining at their houses; and accepting the low and lowly as equal members
of the Saṃgha. He said, ‘worth’ not ‘birth’ should be the measure of man.
According to the Buddha, the measure of man should be spiritual attainment
through the Dhamma and Discipline. He accepts all people from all caste who come
into Saṃgha so that they can enjoy the same spiritual development. When the people
from all castes enter into the Orders in his dispensation, the former names and clans are
lost.
In the Udāna vagga, the Buddha expounded thus:
just as whatever great rivers there are — such as the Ganges, the Yamunā, the
Aciravatī, the Sarabhū, the Mahī — on reaching the ocean, give up their former
names and are classed simply as 'ocean'; in the same way, when members of the
four castes — noble warriors, brahmans, merchants, & workers — go forth from
home to the homeless life in this Dhamma & Vinaya declared by the Tathāgata,
they give up their former names and clans and are classed simply as
'contemplatives, sons of the Sakyan'... This is the fourth amazing & astounding
quality of this Dhamma & Vinaya because of which, as they see it again &
again, the monks take great joy in this Dhamma & Vinaya.2
Myanmar can maintain a good Buddhist tradition because they have seen that monk in
Myanmar is officially used with his newly given name in Pāli language when

1
Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, The Signet Press, Cacutta, 1946, p.120
2
Ud, p. 55
 30

addressing to each other, and his former family name and personal name is no more
used. People also address the monk with only his name in Pāli, while in Cambodia and
Laos; monk is still used family name and his own name for the new name in Pāli given
to him by preceptor is used only in Monk’s Card.
When a person is ordained in Buddhism his family name and personal one is
changed, so his former name or gotra is lost on the day that he became a novice or a
monk, and he is generally respected and paid homage to by the public including his
parents. In this case, it makes one who has little knowledge in Buddhism misunderstand
upon Buddhism.
The late Dr. Keng Vansac, Doctor of Khmer Literature, criticized Buddhism
when he saw the parents pay homage to the monk who happened to be their son. He
said doing like this; it loses Khmer’s custom or tradition. According to the tradition,
normally the son must respect the parents. This is the duty of the son, he said. But,
actually, he failed to know that the former name and lineage of the monk are no more
used in Buddhist tradition. The monk is no longer the son of his parents. He is given
new name in Buddhism, and he is called Sakyans’ son. That is why his parents also pay
homage to him. But there are some parents who do not know this tradition calling the
monk, my son! my son! In this case, the monk is still regarded as a son of the villager,
the district dweller or the Towner. Therefore, there is a Khmer saying: To the Buddha,
thinklessness, homage, to Dhamma, thinklessness, homage, to the Saṃgha,
thinklessless, homage or in simple words, we can say that pay homage to the Buddha
but be careful lest he is the stone, pay homage to the Dhamma, be careful lest it is the
palm leaves and pay homage to the Saṃgha, be careful lest he is the son of the district
dweller.
When one pays homage to the Triple Gems, one should not think I pay homage
to my Buddha, my Dhamma and my venerable son because Buddha is Buddha,
Dhamma is Dhamma and Saṃgha is Saṃgha. Buddha, Dhamma and Saṃgha belong to
no one but all. A Muslim scholar said that;
“The Buddha is not a property of Buddhists only. He is the property of all
mankind. His teaching is common to everybody. Every religion which came into
existence after the Buddha has borrowed many good ideas from the Buddha.”1

1
Ven. Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda, Buddhism in the Eyes of Intellectuals, The Corporate Body of the
Buddha Educational Foundation, Taipei, Taiwan, p.16
 31

The Dhamma is for all if anyone could strike in his or her full effort by observing the
middle path, he or she may be able to attain the Arahantship. So, everyone can perform
good deeds through these three Triple Gems. Furthermore, it is possible to say that
persons who came from all castes to join the Orders able to enjoy the same taste of
liberation from the Dhamma. Just as all the water with different tastes from all different
names of the ponds, the lakes and the rivers, but when flowing into the Ocean they lost
the former name, but remain only one name called Ocean water with one taste, that is,
the salty taste, so also the Dhamma is.
Buddha created a path that facilitated social mobility in a society where such
movement was almost impossible, primarily because of caste and even class. The
community of monks organized had no caste or class distinction. Anyone hailing from a
rural family or from an ordinary low caste was accepted on equal bases. A new name
replacing the old name was given, and thus, nobility was made easier.
Mobility was facilitated by the emphases on achievement. Education or
gathering of knowledge and development of discipline and cultivation of positive inner
qualities (i.e. virtues) was considered as a factor that promotes mobility. Skillfulness is
thus over and over again praised in Buddhist teachings.1
Society’s stratification system is caused by human beings. Such divisions status
regarded as high or low in status, weak or strong in power are influenced by biological,
physical. Psychological and karmic factors are pertaining to moral acts and their
consequences and laws pertaining to spiritual phenomena.
Buddhist thinking attempts to understand these influences which, coming
together causes the formulation of a particular stratification system. Primarily it is
man’s ignorance which causes the division of society into different levels, either based
on ascription or achievement. The Buddhist approach is to understand the basis of this
ignorance and realize the futility of social stratification in human society.
Buddhist thinking sometimes attempts to understand people in a society by
dividing them into strata based on the internal qualities they possess. The state of inner
development would provide according to Buddhism, a better way of grouping people
into various strata- if at all such a system is necessary. In such a division there is logical

1
“http://www.buddhismtoday.com,Socialstratification,access date: 9th November, 2009
 32

explanation and a moral or ethical base where, as in social stratifications based on caste,
class or ethnicity one cannot find either an ethical or a logical explanatory process.1
Instead, the Buddha contributed his ideas to this interpretation of arranging the
role and the status of an individual based on inner qualities. When some monks in the
order began to exert influence, being conscious of their birth or lineage, the Buddha
condemned such an attitude. These monks believed that the best lodging, best food etc.
should go for those of noble ranks. I.e. Brahmins, kshatriyas." in the religion I teach, the
standard by which precedence in the matter of lodging and the like is to be settled is not
noble birth or having been a Brahmin or having been wealthy before entry into the
order".
Caste was prevalent in India from immemorial times. During the Buddha’s days,
caste was a fundamental principle in the social life of the people. A person belongs to a
caste by virtue of his birth, and under no circumstances could this caste be changed
during his lifetime. The Buddha’s contribution in this context is his acceptance of the
fact that one’s caste could be changed. He put this thinking into practice by acceptance
people from all castes – considered high and low-into his community of monks.
By analysing the Lord Buddha’ theory the eminent Bangladesh philosopher, Dr.
Govind Chandra Der said, “His objective was to ensure social equilibrium in the
spiritual sphere of all who are neglected”. Brahmins clan son Sāriputta, the clans of
Barber Upāli and the Kshatriya princes Ānandā and Anuruddhā of the Sakya had no
difference. Queen Mahāpajāpati Gotamī, courtesan Ambapalī, widow without son Their
Chanda, slave Punnika sat in the same seat. Mahā Upāsikā Visākhā and outcaste
Mātangi had no difference. Hence, they entered in the same holy order. Through the
Lord Buddha was in the Sakya clans before renouncing home, among His Chief
disciples many were Brahmin clans. His two foremost disciples were Sāriputta,
prominent in wisdom and Moggalāna, prominent in supernatural power. The Brahmin
clans were Nadī Kassapa, Gayā Kassapa, Mahā Kassapa, Mahā Kaccāyana and
Punnamanti Putta. The Kshatriya were Ānandā, Anuruddhā, Kimbila, Bighu,
Devadatta, accept Rāhula and son of Barber clans Upāli entered into holy order among
the Sakya clans. In order to drive out the pride of Sakya princes, the Lord Buddha gave
ordination first the Barber son, Upāli, then all the Sakya princes. According to monastic

1
Ibid
 33

discipline, if one received first ordination, the late have to salute the first. That is a real
marvelous view for all human beings.
The Buddha admitted Upāli, the barber into the community of monks. Not only
was Upāli belonging to one of the despised occupations of the lower castes admitted to
the order of monks, but also was recognized as an expert on Buddhist monastic law.
Sunitā, an individual who was a scavenger was also admitted to the Buddha’s order of
monks regardless of the fact that he came from the Candāla caste - one of the lowest in
the caste hierarchy, virtually an outcast.
According to their practice people are classified like that but when any persons
from these classes become bhikkhus, there is no difference between them. As long as
they follow the monastic rules, they are called bhikkhus. People treat them equally
without discrimination on the grounds of caste and class. Any one of these classes,
either bhikkhu or layman, can purify their defilements by practising wholesome deeds.
Because Dhamma, or the performing of wholesome deeds is the best thing for people in
every walk of life.1

5. 3. 2. The Purification in Buddhism is for all castes

There should be no discrimination between classes and castes from the purification in
any religion. There are many kinds of purification in many religions. But different
religions have different concepts and practices of purification.
In Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, they have their own rituals to please their Gods
and to free themselves from evil deeds. In Hinduism, there are rituals by bathing in the
water to clean sins and to remove the pollutions or performing fire ceremony. This
religion has theory and practice for the removal of pollutions in that way.
‘Based on the analogy of cleansing outer dirt or stains by means of bathing or
washing in everyday life, purification of man's inner state of being is almost universally
believed to be effected by rituals involving various forms of washing. The polluted
individual might be required to swim or bathe in the sea, a river, a pond, or special tank.
Bathing in swift-flowing streams is often considered especially effective because the
rapidly flowing water not only removes the impurities but carries them away. A
polluted person might wash his entire body with water or only certain parts of the body
that represent the body or person as a whole—rinsing or cleaning the mouth by other

1
Venerable Pyinnythiha, The Way to Social Harmony, 1990 (CD-ROM)
 34

means is common. Water may be poured, sprinkled, thrown, or blown upon a polluted
person or object. Simply touching water is a purifying gesture in the Vedas; gazing at it
is considered purificatory in Sri Lanka (Ceylon). In the absence of water various kinds
of moist substances may be used—clay, mud, wet herbs, or plants. The Quran (the
Islamic sacred scriptures) directs desert dwellers and travelers to rub themselves with
high clean soil because of the scarcity of water. In cultures in which saliva is not
considered polluting, expectorating or breathing on something may be viewed as
purificatory gestures.’1
Other modes of purification based on the analogy of cleansing outer dirt include:
the use of wind or aeration to blow or carry away the impurities; sweeping a house or
certain area of the ground or brushing the polluted person or object, often with a brush
made of fibres from a symbolically pure source; scraping the surface of a polluted
object or utensil; shaving and cutting the hair and nails; removing clothing and washing
it or destroying it; and putting on clean or new clothes.
In some rites and rituals, they use fire because they believe that fire is the most
effective destruction of pollution. The most common means of destroying pollution is
by burning the polluted objects. Fire is a most efficient destroyer; when the flame no
longer exists, there is virtually nothing left of the objects. Fire is generally conceived,
however, as having more positive purifying properties, not only destroying pollution but
creating purity. They believe that fire can transform the pollution into purity.
Fire is perhaps one of the most symbolically complex phenomena in the history
of human culture. It renders raw meats and vegetables into cooked and edible food, base
minerals into useful and durable metals, and porous dirt and clay into watertight pottery.
It destroys the forests and brushlands, but its ashes make the earth fertile and
productive. Fire is thus viewed as a powerful transformer of the negative to the positive.
Because of such properties, fire is commonly found in purification rites throughout the
world. Polluted persons may be required to walk around, jump over, or jump through
fire. Polluted items may be singed, fumigated, or smoked. The widespread use of
incense smoke in purification rites is based on the transforming powers of fire, as well
as on the additional purificatory powers of sweet smells. Polluted persons or things may
be rubbed with ashes or soot, and polluted objects may be boiled, subject to the double
purificatory powers of fire and water. Exposure to sun and to intense heat, are also

1
“Purification rite”, Encyclopedia Britannica DVD ROM 2009
 35

regarded as practices falling into this same general category. The extinguishing of old
fires in temples and villages and the kindling of new ones are common practices after a
death or as part of annual renewal and purification ceremonies. Alchemic experiments,
which attempt to purify mineral substances and turn them into gold, involve boiling or
melting down the solution or elements over pure and intense heat and then
recrystallizing them in newer and higher forms.
There are also other purification rites that should be known here. In highly
developed and elaborated systems of thought, purity and pollution meet and merge.
Buddhist monks are considered to be extremely pure, yet they are directed to make their
robes from cemetery cloths, and beds or litters used in funerals may be donated to their
monasteries. Buddhist relics with great purifying power are often composed of bits of
hair, nails, and bones (albeit of the Buddha or other great saints); in Sri Lanka the word
(dhātu) for such relics is the same as the word for semen. Monks and nuns of Jainism
(an Indian religion founded by Mahāvīra in the 6th century BC) are ordered not to bathe
and under no circumstances to clean their teeth.
In Hinduism, if a Brahmin (a member of the highest caste) enters a street of the
untouchables (outcastes), he is polluted, but the whole street also falls prey to disease,
famine, and sterility.
In a Myanmar folktale, an alchemist became discouraged with his experiments
and threw his alchemic stone into a latrine pit; on contact with the excrement, the stone
achieved purity—thus indicating that contacts with pollution may bring about purity.1
Cleansing outer dirt or stains on the body or any object by means of bathing or
washing in everyday life is one kinds of important thing according to the rules of
hygiene. Most of people in this modern world now they have already known this very
well through their education at schools and at public places. However, when the inner
state of the human mind is stained or defiled by evil deeds that a person has done
through bodily, verbal and mental doors, the way how to clean by bathing or washing
such thing with water is impossible. According to Buddhism, the way how to clean sins
by bathing in water is not encouraged to practise because it is not a correct method that
one should do.
Anyone, no matter who, may practise the Dhamma; caste and class do not play
an important part in the success of his teachings. According to Buddhism,

1
Ibid
 36

whoever, either Brahmins or others, does bad deeds such as killing, stealing,
etc., is not purified and is blame worthy. Caste and class are man-made. They
have nothing to do with purity and nobility. But they played an important role
before the Buddha appeared on the earth. In those days Brahmins thought that
only their caste was the highest and the purest. Therefore, when other heavenly
beings requested him to come to the world of humans so that he might become
an Enlightened One, the Bodhisatta, whose last life but one was in a heavenly
abode, considered his future mother's caste in advance so that he would not be
treated with disdain on the grounds of caste, and so he was conceived by a
queen. But the Buddha did not escape opposition, notably that stirred by the
ritualistic Brahmans anxious to preserve their religious monopoly, for a
considerable number of Brahmans were won over by his teachings and his
replies to questions, for his teachings ignored the caste system.1
In Saṅgārava sutta of Saṃyutta Nikāya, the Buddha told the way to practise properly to
A Brahmin Saṅgārava. The Buddha was told by Ānandā about this story. It was, then,
in the morning, Venerable Ānandā went for alms round in Sāvatthi, and when he had
returned from his arms round, after his meal he went to the Blessed One and told him
that he had seen a Brahmin named Saṅgārava, a practitioner of water-purification, one
who believes in purification by water, who dwelt devoted to the practice of immersing
himself in water at dusk and at dawn.
Venerable Ānandā said this, “it would be good, venerable sir, if the Blessed One
approached the residence of the Brahmin Saṅgārava out of compassion.” The Blessed
consented by silence. After being told by Ānandā, on morrow, the Blessed One took
robe and bowl, going to the Brahmin’s residence and sat down on the appointed seat.
Then the Brahmin Saṅgārava approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings
with him, after which he sat down to one side. The Blessed One said to him: “is it true,
Brahmin, that you are a practitioner of water-purification, one who believes in
purification by water, devoted to the practice of immersing himself in water at dusk and
at dawn? “Yes, Master, Gotama.”, The Brahmin replied.
“Considering what benefit do you do this, Brahmin?” The Blessed asked. So, the
Brahmin replied thus:

1
www.buddhismtoday.com, Buddhist Sociology, Updated: 1-1-2001
 37

“Here, Master Gotama, whatever evil deed I have done during the day I wash
away by bathing at dusk. Whatever evil deed I have done at night I wash away
by bathing at dawn.”1
The Blessed One considered that this is not the way to wash away the evil deed by a
person. So he told the Brahmin the true path of the practice in this way;
“The Dhamma, Brahmin, is a lake with fords of virtue—a limpid lake the good
praise to the good—where the knowledge-masters to bathe, and dry-limed, cross
to the far shore.”2
When this was said the Brahmin Saṅgārava praised the Buddha with exclamation word
and took refuge in him for life. In this case, The Buddha just speaks the truth and shows
the right path from his personal experience, many humans who were blind or ignorant
could see things as they really are, and many people from bottom up became his
followers. They believe Buddhism because it is a rationalistic religion. In Buddhists’
thought all wrong path should be abandoned. Therefore, the Brahmin who believes in
achieving spiritual purity through water is actually not the path to the purification.
Na udakena suci hoti, Bahvetha nhāyati jano;
Yamhi saccañca dhammo ca,
So suci so ca brahmaṇo’ti.3
“Not by water is one cleaned, many people bathe in this. In whom is truth
and Dhamma, He is cleaned, he is a Brahmin.”
Brahmins believe that by bathing in the Ganges River, they can purify the pollution and
wash away the sins that they had done and by doing so, after death they go to heaven.
But Buddhists believe that no one is purified by bathing in water for the evil deeds done
bodily, verbally and mentally. If one can be purified by just bathing in the water in that
way, many fish, frogs, tortoises and all creatures that live and swim in the water every
day can also clean and will all wash away the sins and go to heaven after death in the
same way. Buddhists do not believe in such kind of practice for the purification of
beings. The way for the purification of beings in Buddhism is different from
Brahmanism or other religions. It is neither simple and nor complicated.
It is really good if one has intimate friend (kalyāṇa mitta). kalyāṇa mitta here is
referred to the teachers who are competent and virtuous one able to guide the correct

1
SN, I, (Saṅgārava Sutta), p. 183
2
Ibid
3
Un, (Jaṭila Sutta), p. 6
 38

way of practice in one’s life. The Buddha is one of the greatest kalyāṇa mittas for all
beings. Everyone who had a chance to associate with the Buddha in his lifetime could
get good benefit such as knowledge and experience to liberate from suffering and so on.
Many Brahmins who used to practised in wrong ways before, but when they met the
Buddha and practised under his guidance they became Arahant.
For the purification of beings, means for the purification of the minds of beings.
Because Buddha is more concerned about the purification of mind than the
purification of the physical body-although it does not mean that we do not take
care of the cleanliness of the physical body—what is more important for us is
the cleanliness of our minds. So, the purification here means purification of
minds of beings.
In the commentaries it is said that personal cleanliness or cleanliness of the body
as well as the cleanliness of the place are conducive to concentration and
wisdom. So we also need to keep our bodies clean and keep the place where we
meditate clean. Although we are not to neglect the cleanliness of the body, we
should be more concerned about the cleanliness of our minds. So here the
Buddha said that mindfulness is the only way for the purification of minds of
beings.1
Therefore; we should develop concentration to make our mind calm, pure, peaceful and
free from all mental bondages and blockages. The Buddha said;
By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone;
by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can
purify another.2
In other religions like Hinduism and Christianity they take bath in the river to clean
their sins. They believe that by doing so the sins which are done can be removed in the
present lives and also through doing that they will be reborn in the heaven after
departing from this world to the next. We do not criticize them because they think that
is the way to purify their lives in their religions.
However, according to Buddhism, we have different ways to purify our lives,
especially the mind. We perform wholesome deeds to forget the former sinful objects
that we have already done before to make our mind clean and free from the unskilfully

1
Sayadaw U Sīlānanda, The Four Foundation of Mindfulness, Ven.Nanadasena and Samanera Sumitta
(ed), Inward Path, Penang, Malaysia, 2002, p.6
2
Dh, p. 25
 39

complicated imaginations and also to curb the mind from the arising of desire to do
more new sins. After dispelling the sinful objects from our minds, soon we grab the
opportunity to do wholesome actions instead in order to purify our mind free from
nuisances such as by giving alms, undertaking morality, and developing mental culture.
In this way, we can make our mind pure and powerful with radiating of penetrative light
as usual. Just that, it is not like the way of cleaning sins by taking bath as other regions
do.
As a matter of fact, meditation is probably like the best technique to clean sins.
Meditation has no religious labels. Or in other words, it is also possible to say that
meditation has no caste or religious label. Every person from any religion or any caste
can practise it, especially mindfulness meditation. Actually, when we sit practising the
meditation for the first time we will experience sleepiness, numbness and also the
painful feeling will arise in our body. But no problem, we should try to overcome these
difficult feelings because soon they will disappear. If they do not disappear, so we can
change our position and make effort again until our practice become successful.
Especially we should be patient with the painful feeling with neutral mind because this
is the chance for us to flow out the bad kamma right here through this pain. Patience is a
key for opening the door to Nibbàna. So please do not drop out our practice.
Moreover, our feelings after they are arising soon, they disappear naturally.
When we have insight wisdom that feelings cannot have influence on us and so we can
sit in meditation and see perfectly the arising and the disappearing of the feelings for
many hours with our neutral mind.
Reaching this stage, we are required to exert more strenuous effort to extend our
practice gradually from ten minutes to fifteen minutes until we can focus our mind on
the in-breath and the out-breath for one hours or two hours or even more than that with
an indifferent mind, then the bad kamma will also be gradually vanished until they are
totally exhausted. Not only just sitting but we can also practise mindfulness meditation
with any one of the four postures at any time of the day and night. That is the way of
purifying our mind to be free from evil sins that we had already done.
Thus, according to the teachings of the Buddha, purity and impurity of human
do not depend on castes and classes, it depends on their action or their good deed and
evil. Therefore, equality of castes can be seen in Panca Nikayas, the teachings of the
Buddha.
 40

5. 3. 3. Castes and the emancipation of oneself from suffering

There is too much suffering in this world. If one realizes the truth of suffering, one
should find the way to liberate from it.
Some people used to say that “we are free thinkers and do not have a religion”.
But if anyone is a free thinker then certainly he is a Buddhist because the Buddha
encouraged freedom of thoughts. The freedom of thought allowed by the Buddha is
unheard of elsewhere in the history of religions. This freedom is necessary because
according to the Buddha, man’s emancipation depends on his own realization of the
Truth and not on the benevolent grace of a god or any external power as a reward for his
obedient behaviour. The Blessed One never said to his disciples, ‘Pray and believe.’ He
used to say ‘Come and see, come and investigate. Don’t believe anything with blind
faith.’
In Buddhism blind faith is condemned and it is substituted by saddhā
(confidence) based on knowledge and understanding. Buddhism believes in man’s
potentialities which help him to attain the Buddhahood. All people are endowed with
the same capabilities, whereby they can get transcendental powers. To achieve it or not,
it depends on man’s choice. Brahmanical thinkers considered it to be the union with the
Supreme Being i.e Brahmasahavyatā. Brahmanical thinkers have propounded a theory
that only the brahmaṇas have the sole monopoly or authority to attain that union with
the Supreme Being. This is a sort of depraving a man of his freedom of thought.
The Buddha, for the first time, drew His attention to this problem. He
maintained that any man irrespective of his caste, creed or colour, could get
emancipation. No one can enable another person to get purity. From the following
quotation, it becomes evident that the Buddha bestowed complete freedom on man. He
admonished His disciple that they should make effort and the Tathāgatas can only show
the way. Whereas the Bhagavad Gīta states that he who wants to get liberation, should
give up all other beliefs and seeks refuge in krishnā alone. On the other hand, the
Buddha says;
Attā hi attano nātho, kohi nātho parosiyā. Attanā hi sudantena, nāthaṃ labhati
dullabhaṃ. (Self is the Lord of Self. How can others be Lord of Self. By
subduing oneself, one can obtain a Refuge (i.e Arahataphala) which is so
difficult to attain.)1

1
Dh, p. 24
 41

Furthermore, Venerable Pandita describes as follows;

According to the Buddha, man’s emancipation depends on his own realization of
Truth and not on the benevolent grace of a god or any external power as a
reward for his obedient good behaviour. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the
Buddha as his moral teacher, he makes neither self-surrender nor sacrifices his
freedom of thought. Without sacrificing his freedom of thoughts, a Buddhist can
exercise his own free will even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.
Anyone who wishes to attain Nibbāna—emancipation has only to rely on his
own understanding uninfluenced by dogmas and blind belief.1
After a comparison of both Buddhist ideals and those of Bhagavad Gīta, one is tempted
to arrive at the conclusion that Buddhism is more liberal, democratic and humanitarian
than other philosophical thoughts of India. The human society is the creation of man.
Man who lives in such a society has certain primary or basis as well as secondary
requirements. Although these requirements are same for all, yet the ways and means to
fulfil them are wholly different. As far as the needs are concerned, man is the same.
Man is the same in so far as the four types of conditions are concerned. The four
postures are described as sitting, walking, lying and sleeping. These are common to all,
so the man kind is the same. In the same manner, there is the same path to be trodden on
to get the highest goal i.e. emancipation. As the Buddha pointed out the emancipation
can be attained by anybody, by following the path which he showed. There is no
difference in it. It is common to all. Some people in His time could not get this
emancipation, as they followed different paths that were put forth by Brāhmanical
thinkers. These thinkers claimed that the path to purity was restricted to only a
particular society. This is quite clear from the questions that were put to the Buddha by
king Pasenadi of Kosala Kingdom. The king asked the Buddha whether there is any
difference in emancipation attained by the four castes.
The Buddha explained that people of the four castes, may get different kinds of
fire woods, such as mango stick, sāla stick, etc. and burn it. The fire that is created from
different kinds of firewood does not differ at all. In the same manner, people aspiring
for emancipation can get the spiritual flame in the hearts.
The Buddha left to his followers this suggestion for freedom; "Be, each one of
you, your own island, and your own refuge; do not seek another refuge. It is the

1
Venerable Pandit P. Sri Pemaratana Nayaka Mahathera, Buddha’s contribution to mankind,
Persekutuan, Malaysia, pp.4-5
 42

way that you will reach liberation from all suffering." It means that no one but
oneself can free one from suffering. Liberation can only come from one's own
effort. One should not undertake excessively austere practices or self-
indulgence, nor rely on prayers to any deity. One must liberate oneself from
error and folly by following the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha disclosed the
way which enables people to get, not only personal progress and happiness, but
also the good order and prosperity of society. He never sought to make people
submit unconditionally to his own teachings. He regarded man as free, truly
holding his destiny in his own hands.
Once, when the Buddha stayed at a monastery offered to him by Visākhā in
Sāvatthi, a Brahmin named Ganaka-Moggallana approached and asked him, "Do
you lay down progressive learning in your teaching as in every other teaching?"
The Buddha said, "I lay down a gradual practice in respect of my teaching: if I
see a person who deserves to be taught, first of all I teach him to observe
precepts as a basis. Secondly, I urge him to
control the enjoyment of all his senses, for, if a person indulges his senses in
everything, his mind may be defiled with greed, lust, anger, ill-will and so on.
Thirdly, I suggest to him to be moderate in eating so as to be able to practise
insight meditation very well. Fourthly, I teach him how to be constantly vigilant
and how to be possessed of mindfulness as regards his every movement. After
that I advise him to practise insight meditation to get rid of mental defilement. A
person has to take these steps to attain perfect inner peace or Nibbana as long as
he has not eradicated the ten mental defilements; personal ego-belief (Sakkāya
diṭṭhi), doubt (Vicikicchā), wrong conception of practice (Sīlabbata-parāmāsa),
ill-will (Byāpāda), craving for material existence (Rūpa-rāga), craving for non-
material existence (Arūpa-rāga), conceit (Māna), restlessness (Uddhaccā) and
illusion (Avijjā)."
The Brahmin asked the Buddha, "Do your disciples, taught by you, all attain
perfect inner peace or Nibbāna?" "Some of them attain perfect inner peace but
some do not" the Buddha answered. "Even if Nibbāna does exists; the way
leading to it exists and you exist as a teacher, why do some of your disciples not
attain Nibbāna?" the Brahmin asked. The Buddha said, "Suppose, two people,
who want to go to the city, Rājagaha, approach and ask you the way leading to
 43

the city, you explain in detail how to get there and what they will pass on the
way because you know the road to the city very well. One of them, having taken
your words to heart, arrives at the city safe and sound but the other does not
because he may take a wrong way or else he may forget his aim, following other
business. What can you do for the latter?" "I can do nothing more for him" the
Brahmin said. The Buddha said, “In this way I too can only show the way to
practise to be free from suffering.”1
Some followers say that in their religion, their God is the recipient of sins done by his
followers or others. So, they take refuge in their God for salvation. But this is not
reasonable. For example, if we step on fire, the fire will burn us, but not burn the God.
If we eat food by our self, we are surely full by our self, but not full the God. So, the
idea that God receives sins of others may encourage human beings to do sins more and
more. So, that is not the way to free oneself from suffering. Actually, sinful action is hot
like burning iron. It is shame or fear for us to touch or do it. Therefore, the Buddha said
he who does action, he will reap the result by himself. Not any others can receive it
instead of him. Generally, in society, if any one does sinful action by killing other. In
this case, no one volunteers to allow himself to be put in jail for him. On the contrary,
if we do good deed we can share with others. They will rejoice to receive it. It is a
power of good action, called kusala dhamma.
Actually, the purpose of Dhamma is not for grasping. The Dhamma is like raft
for crossing over the ocean. One who follows the Dhamma will reach the far shore that
is very difficult to cross; it means he will surely attain the Nibbāna—blissful state not
mingled with any suffering. Take refuge in the Dhamma, then we will have safe refuge
and safe happiness in our lives. The Dhamma support being from not falling into woeful
states, but the Dhamma helps the person who follows the Dhamma only. After realizing
the truths in this way, one should study and practise the Dhamma.

5. 3. 4. Truth was open to attainment by all castes alike equal in degree

People are beginning to accept as common sense that all major religions can teach the
truth and be different.
As we enter the new millennium, it is now becoming common sense that “the
paths are many, but they all lead to the same place.” We are seeing through illusion

1
M, III, p. 1
 44

there is only one way, or one superior people, or one superior teaching or religion, for
all people. As we see the wisdom in all religions, we are able to appreciate truths in our
personal paths even better. Anyway, we should know that “Buddhism rejects all esoteric
and restricted communication of knowledge and virtue. The Buddha emphasized that
there should be no secrecy in doing good. Secrecy and evil action which need to be
hidden, go together. All instructions should be clearly delineated to differentiate
religious and and spiritual knowledge and practice. Buddhism is a spiritual path, not a
sectarian religious tradition. This distinction needs to be understood by all genuine
seekers of truth.”
Of course, In Buddhism, without discrimination, encourages all mankind to
pursue the truth by one own way through his or her experience. This is a freedom of
belief found in Buddhism. In the Buddha’s life time, people of Kālāmas of Kesaputta
were mistaken upon the truth because there were many spiritual leaders came to express
their views in different ways among them. Some said, ‘their views are good and the
other’s views are bad’, while some others said, ‘their views are right and the others’
views are wrong.’ In these cases, they were confused and could not find the truth, and
then as one day the Buddha also came to their district. So, they came to meet him and
asked,
‘Sir, certain recluses and Brahmins come to Kesaputta. As to their own view,
they proclaim and expound it in full: but as to the view of others, they abuse it,
revile it, depreciate it and cripple it. Moreover, sir, other recluses and Brahmins,
on coming to Kesaputta, do likewise. When we listen to them, sir, we have
doubt and wavering as to which of these worthies is speaking truth and which
speaks falsehood.’1
At that time, relevant to this question, the Buddha gave the answer to them which is free
from dogmas and superstitious beliefs in his dispensation and it should be taken into
account and tested even by all men, women, religionists, and free thinkers today
whether the Buddha addressed true words or not. He answered thus,
‘So then, Kālāmas, as to my words to you just now: “Be ye not misled by report
or tradition or hearsay. Be not misled by proficiency in the collections (or
books), nor by mere logic or inference, nor after considering reasons, nor after
reflection on and approval of some theory, nor because it fits becoming, nor out

1
AN, I, p. 171
 45

of respect for a recluse (who holds it). But Kālāmas, when you know for
yourself: These things are unprofitable, these things are blameworthy, these
things are censured by the intelligent, conduce to loss and sorrow, -- then indeed
do ye reject them,” such was my reason for uttering those words.1
We can understand that the Buddha’s answer above to Kālāma clans is really practical.
Of course, all major religions in the world teach the truth. Since there are many truths in
many religions, we are difficult to accept. It is, however, truth needs no label of any
religion if we say in the deepest sense. The truth has value by itself and it can be
experienced and realized by everyone. The most important thing is to know oneself by
oneself. The Buddha had found the truth in nature, that is, the very four Noble truths,
namely, (1) the truth of suffering, (2) the truth of the cause of suffering, (3) the truth of
the origin of suffering and (4) the truth of the path leading to cessation of suffering.
These four Noble truths, the truth of number (1) and (2) belong to mundane and (3) and
(4) belong to supramundane, and these Four Noble Truths should be realized by
insight knowledge or we need to follow the Middle Path and avoid two extremes. So,
first we need to study the Four Noble Truths, and then we need to follow the Eightfold
Noble Path to experience the Truths.
Perhaps now one can better appreciate why the Buddha said the path was
straight. Crookedness of body, speech and mind are overcome by this threefold training
of sīla, samādhi and paññā found in the Noble Eightfold Path. Walking straight along
this path, one transcends crookedness and is free from many dangers. As it has been
known by many Buddhists that the Buddha gave the five ascetics the first sermon
(Dhammacaka pavattana sutta), the discourse on Turning the Wheel of Dhamma which
is focused on the two extremes, the wrong ways that should be avoided, while the
Middle Path or right way (the Eightfold Noble Path) should be followed because it leads
to the cessation of suffering and finally to the attainment of Nibbāna.
He delivered the Dhamma talk while he was living at Benares in the Deer Park
at Isipatana. There he addressed the bhikkhus of the Group of five thus:
Bhikkhus, there are these two extremes that ought not to be cultivated by one
who has gone forth. What two? There is devotion to pursuit of sensual desires,
which is low, coarse, vulgar, ignoble and harmful; and there is devotion to self-
mortification, which is painful, ignoble and harmful. The middle way discovered

1
Ibid
 46

by the Perfect One avoids both these extremes; it creates an eye, creates
knowledge, and leads to peace, to direct-knowledge, to full-enlightenment, to
Nibbāna. And what is that middle way? It is this noble Eightfold Path, that is to
say: right view, right thought, right speaking, right acting, right living, right
effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. That is the middle way
discovered by the Perfect One, which creates an eye, creates knowledge, and
leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to full-enlightenment, to Nibbāna.1
Over two thousand five hundred and fifty years ago, the Buddha had paved the way for
all mankind to follow his footstep in order to seek the truth and that truth stands well for
today and will stand forever as the Truth. “The Way to Realize the Truth” would lead
all to have a clear vision as well as real peace and happiness based on the foundation of
the Dhamma or unique Truth taught by the Buddha. The Dhamma based on Ultimate
Truth is for the weal and welfare of all living beings. By applying the Dhamma in our
daily life, it would give power to convert the mind from ignorance to Wisdom. It
develops a heart of Wisdom, a heart of love, a heart of understanding, to overcome
prevailing vices which have plagued man since the beginning of time, to get rid of
greed, hatred and misunderstanding.
There are two kinds of Right view (Sammā-Diṭṭhi) viz. Right view based on
conventional Truth, Right view of worldling and Right view based on Ultimate Truth,
Right View of Buddha's teaching, Belief in Kamma (Own action) and Vipāka (its result)
is called Right View of worldling. All good worldly persons (Kalyāṇa-puthujana) have
this Right View based on Conventional Truth, so they disgust and dread to do evil. For
this belief, they always observe precepts for the welfare of themselves and others. They
are always ready to do or help for the welfare of themselves and others. So the good
worldly persons have the mind of “Attahita-Parahita” (the will to do for the benefit of
himself and others). Due to their good conduct of abstaining from evil and cultivating
good they live in peace and happily in this very life; when they die, they would go to the
blissful world.
Therefore, one who has realized the conventional Truth and possessed himself
Right view of worldling, whatever he does, it is for the gaining of the bliss of human
being, celestial being and Brahma. Moreover' he will gradually fulfil either the
perfection of disciple (Sāvaka pāramī) or the perfection of Silent Buddha (Pacceka-

1
SN, III, p. 422
 47

pāramī) or the perfection of Omniscient Buddha (Sabbaññu-pāramī). Finally, he will

come to realize the Ultimate Truth of existence and headed by Right view of Buddha's
Teaching. Whatever he does it is for the attaining of either the Enlightenment of disciple
(Sāvaka Bodhi) or the Enlightenment of Silent Buddha (Pacceka-Bodhi) or the
Enlightenment of Omniscient Buddha (Sabbaññu-Bodhi).
The goal of Buddhism is the attainment of Enlightenment or Realizing the Truth.
The main aim of the Buddha's Teaching is to attain Nibbāna, i.e. the cessation of all
kinds of suffering. Buddhism is, in fact, a means for attaining Enlightenment, Wisdom.
In other words, the whole practice of Buddhism may be regarded as process of gaining
the knowledge of Right View of Ultimate Truth. For it is only through practice of
mindfulness or vigilant awareness and contemplate on Khandhās (the five aggregates)
or Mind and Matter that one can realize things as they really are. It is the way to realize
the Truth. Realizing the Truth puts an end to the erroneous views about self,
individuality or personality belief (Sakkāya Diṭṭhi) which are based upon illusory
conceptions, and this enables one to escape from the world of suffering in worldly life
including caste prejudice and racial discrimination as well as life in the round of rebirth
(Saṃsāra).
Fundamentally, Buddhism teaches that man must rely on himself in working out
his own deliverance and that he can liberate himself away from suffering and woeful
consequence of perpetual existence of birth and death by the perfect realization of Truth
or the Four Noble Truths. There is none that can liberate a man but oneself. It is our
right to work out the way to realize the Truth as well as to walk along the Middle Way
to progress Right View and Wisdom on how to lead a richer life of real peace and
happiness.1
We should study the Buddha’s experience. As a noble prince named Siddhattha
Gotama, after his happy marriage, he led a luxurious life, blissfully unaware of the
vicissitudes of life outside the palace gates. With the march of time, Truth gradually
dawned upon him. Amidst comfort and prosperity, he began to realize the universality
of suffering. One glorious day, as he went out of the palace, he saw the four great
omens, namely; the old, the sick, the death and the monk. The first three sights
convinced him of the inexorable nature of life and the universal sickness of humanity.
The fourth signified the means to overcome the ills of life and attain calm and peace.

1
U Oo Tha Tun, The Way to Realization of the Truth, Myanmar, p.v-viii
 48

Realizing the worthlessness of sensual pleasures highly praised by ordinary men

and the value of renunciation in which the wise seek delight, he decided to leave the
world in search of Truth and Peace. When this final decision was made after much
deliberation, the seemingly happy news of the birth of a son was conveyed to him.
However, he was not overjoyed and regarded his first and only offspring as an
impediment to the search of Truth. So the infant son was accordingly named Rāhula by
his grandfather. The time was ripe for him to depart the palace of worldly pleasure. It
was in his 29th year, the turning point of his life that Prince Siddhattha made the Great
Renunciation. He grasped the Truth that all without exception were subject to birth,
decay, and death. He made himself as an ascetic and tried to find a way to realize the
Truth.
For six long years, he practised all forms of severe austerity at Uruvela forest.
As a seeker of the Truth and the Peace he got an idea from his view point of own
experience. There was a way to realize the Truth and the Peace, the Majjhima Patipadā
or the Middle Path apart from two extremes, self-indulgence and self-mortification. He
sat cross legged beneath a Bodhi-tree on the bank of river Nerañjarā in the forest of
Uruvela at Bodhagaya in India and meditated with the earnest wish and firm
determination not to rise from his seat until he attained the Truth, the Buddha-hood by
way of Middle Path.
On the full-moon night of Vesak in 588 B.C, while meditating with mind
tranquillized and purified, he developed supernormal knowledge with regard to the
destruction of passions and comprehending all things as they truly are. He realizes the
Truth that the cause of suffering lies in a selfish craving for life, and that the way of
escape from suffering lies in treading the eight-fold path. With discernment of this
Truths and their realization in life, the Boddhisatta eradicated all passions and attained
perfect Enlightenment or perfect Wisdom. And then He uttered these words of Triumph,
such works as countless myriads of Buddhas have spoken in the past:
“I have run through the journeying-on of numerous births, without respite,
seeking the house-maker; birth again and again is painful. “O house-maker, you
are seen. You will not make the house again. All these rafters are broken, the
house-ridge is destroyed. The mind, set on the destruction (of material things),
has attained the termination of the cravings.”1

1
Dh, p. 22
 49

It means the house is the body; the builder is craving, passions are the rafters and the
house-ridge is ignorance.
By realizing the Truth with Omniscience and great Compassion, the Buddha
expounded the Dhamma cakkapavattana sutta to his friends, the five Ascetics, namely:
Kondañña, Vappa, Bhaddiya, Mahānāma and Assaji which led the five Ascetics to the
attainment of Sotàpatti, the first stage of sainthood and a1l became monks, disciples of
the Buddha. Later the Buddha also preached to them the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta or
Discourse on Non-Self hearing which all attained Arahantship or final stage of
sainthood. This is also the realizing of the Truth of the five Ascetics in this world after
the Buddha.
Before His passing away (Parinibbāna) in 543 BC, which was in His 80th year
at a place called Kusināra, His famous last message to His disciples was: "Behold, O
disciples, I exhort you. Subject to decay are all component things. Strive on with
heedfulness."
In this way the Buddha had spent 45 years wandering and preaching to the
people of all castes and creeds, with only four hours for repose and the remaining
twenty for an indefatigable selfless service to give the way to realize the Truth. His
Dhamma that is summarized as "avoid evil, do good, purify the mind" (Dhp-185)
through Generosity, Morality, and Meditation.
Thus, ended the life of the Buddha the world has ever known. Otherwise the
Buddha leaves the Dhamma, the way to realize the Truth for all.
Therefore, if any one wants to realise the truths should follow the Buddha’s way.
As it is known from Vipassanā practical point of view taught by the Buddha is that
when a meditator practises insight meditation up to reaching the change-of-lineage
knowledge (gotrabhū ñāṇa), the thirteenth stage of vipassanā ñāṇa. This knowledge
succeeds the anuloma ñāṇa, which includes three moments of citta for the person who
realises the Noble Truths more slowly than a person with keen paññā. Change-of-
lineage knowledge is mahā kusala citta ñāṇa sampayutta and this citta has Nibbāna as
object but not yet eradicate defilements, is called ‘adverting to the path.’ Though it is
not adverting (āvajjana), it occupies the position of adverting; and then, after, as it
were, giving a sign to the path to come into being, it ceases. So only when the meditator
continues to practise to get path knowledge (magga ñāṇa), the fourteenth stage of
 50

Vipassanā ñāṇa, then it is possible to eradicate the defilements. It should be known in

the following:
When gotrabhù has fallen away it is succeeded by the path-consciousness of the
sotàpanna and this citta transcends the state of the ordinary person and reaches
the state of the noble person, the Aryan. This citta eradicates defilements in
accordance with the stage of enlightenment that has been reached.1
Here it is said when any persons even come from different castes but if he practises
insight meditation till the attainment of the path-knowledge in which has path-
consciousness to wipe up defilements, then he is said to become Ariyan and therefore,
even though he is different in quality, but he will be equal in degree with the other
Ariyans. The terms ‘Aryan’ (ariya) and ‘non-Aryan’ (anariya) here are frequently
found in the Buddhist texts, but never in a racial sense. The racial sense of superiority
associated with word ‘Aryan’ is completely eclipsed by the moral and spiritual sense of
superiority, which the word in a Buddhist context connotes, devoid of any associations
of race or birth. So, according to Buddhism, one who is highly in morality and
spirituality even though he was born in low class, but he is called Aryan, noble person.

1
Sujin Boriharnwanaket, A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Dhamma Study and Support Foundation,
2005, p.337