Buddhism in India

Buddhist Civilisation 135

the military and police, and allies. The Brahmanical version only

discusses the parts of the political system itself; the Buddhist version

looks at the state relationship with society, specifically names the

gahapatias the provider of wealth, and is much less concerned with

violence.

This indicates that the Buddhist state, while intervening in

economic life, does not attempt to manage the economy directly

but rather lets ‘private enterprise’ do so; both merchants and the

artisan guilds were respected parts of social and political life. In

contrast the Brahmanic texts are highly distrustful of merchants

and of private enterprise: ‘Merchants...are all thieves, in effect if

not in name,’ says Kautilya (Arthasastra 1992: 236). The negative

attitude to merchants seems to persist throughout the literature of

Brahmanism. The ‘bania’ is a kind of dirty, mocked figure, allowed

to exist and make money, indeed without any moral requirements

laid upon his methods of money-making, but he is not seen as

entrepreneurial and innovative nor is he encouraged to be so.

Rather, the state is expected to manage the economy. Thus the

Arthashastradepicts a regime with a high degree of state-run

enterprises, including brothels, mines, textile factories; setting of

prices; and extreme regulation of trade. Records of the Mauryas,

including Asoka, do not show state-run enterprise; and the

Kusanas and their successors alike supervised trade, but did not

regulate it highly (Liu 1994: 79–81).

There is another important aspect of the relations between state

and society that was fostered by Buddhism. Ambedkar discusses it:

Why there have not been social revolutions in India is a question

which has incessantly troubled me. There is only one answer which I

can give and it is that the lower classes of Hindus have been com-

pletely disabled for direct action on account of this wretched system

of Chaturvarnya (Ambedkar 1987: 70).

While Marxism has generally seen all religions as fostering con-

tentment with an exploitative social order, as the ‘opium of the

people’, they do not do so equally. To the extent that it encourages the

idea of a just state and the right of resistance, religions can actually

foster rebellion. Arthur Wright takes up this issue in regard to

Buddhism in China, pointing out the ways in which many Buddhist

notions (especially karma/rebirth) induced quietism, and noting

these among their councillors, with the Bodhisattva’s sanction;
kings’ sons by slave or low-born women are confirmed as kings. In
one Jataka the theme that ‘in love there is no unlikeness’ is
proclaimed and an important example given is that of a Candal
woman being the mother of a King Sibi (#546). In the famous story
of Vidudhabha, the son of King Pasadeni of Kosala by a slave girl
from among the Sakyas, the Bodhisattva is shown as defending him
and his mother’s place in the kingdom. When Vidudhabha destroys
the Sakyas because they refuse to give him honour, the Bodhisattva
defends his kinsmen, but only three times; on the fourth
Vidudhabha’s army marches and destroys them (#7). In another
story, the Bodhisattva recognises but does not expose a merchant’s
son by a slave who poses himself as a full son because he shows
humility (#125). The Buddha’s own friendly relations with the
courtesan Ambapalli is well known, and the famous physician
Jivaka was himself the son of a courtesan, abandoned only because
his mother did not want an obstruction to her profession. All of
this indicates, again, an open society not much concerned with
birth, an attitude defended by Buddhism.
For centuries, then, there was a concerted effort by Brahmanism
to impose a varna social order on society, which the Buddhists and
others resisted. This battle was gradually won by Brahmanism, but
the power shown by varnashrama dharmaat certain periods and in
certain regions should not be ‘read’ into all of India or projected
unrealistically backward in time. The real history of caste in India
is still to be written!

The State and Society

The Buddhists had very specific ideals of what the ideal king should
be like, and their views on the state was very different from
Brahmanism. One aspect of this is the relation between the state
and the economy, where the Buddhist ideal both reflected and
influenced society. This can be seen in the difference between
the ‘seven jewels’ of the Buddhist king, and the ‘seven limbs’ of the
ideal Brahmanical state. The ‘jewels’ include the wheel, an
elephant, a horse, a gem, a queen, a minister, and the gahapati, the
purveyor of wealth in the economy. The Brahmanical ‘limbs’
are the king, councillors, the territory, fortified cities, the treasury,

134 Buddhism in India