Here the central idea, says Nataraja Guru, is that man should “realise his true humanity and unitive solidarity and realise also that terms like ‘Brahmin’ and ‘Pariah’ are ideas superimposed on the reality that is human nature which is essentially one, and fundamentally of one single sameness”. After Buddha, no philosopher had tried to tackle the problem of caste in such forceful terms and with such convincing logic.
Sankara had treated it as a necessary and given aspect of social obligation. He found nothing unnatural in it. In fact his advaita philosophy is based on the concept of Varna dharma. Varna abid in divisiveness, in disunity and Sankara’s fugitiveness thrives on divisiveness. Advaita, in the sense becomes a vision of multiplicity.
Sree Narayana Guru by denying Varna and jati has seen the true dharma. His advaita is, therefore, fundamentally different from Sankara’s. Sankara’s advaita is, therefore, fractional monism; while Sree Narayana’s advaitam is perfect or purna advaitam.
There is a strange note of similarity in the teachings of Buddha and Narayana Guru especially in their treatment of the question of caste, Buddha said, the hand that takes the chamata leaf will not attain purity by that act alone. Internal purity cannot be attained by external actions. He also says that mankind is of one sameness.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The kind of man, according to him, is one. There is no difference between man and man. The groups of creatures are of different kinds. Trees and grasses are also of different species and they admit distinctions. And each of the species has its own distinctive characteristics. Only in Homo sapiens no such distinction is seen. They are all alike from head to foot. Only in name they differ. Sree Narayana’s concept of caste is thus of apiece with Buddha’s.
Buddha’s scheme of social reform, through the organization of the Sangha, was essentially a revolutionary event in the India of the 6th century B.C. and later. It cut at the root of Brahmanism which was based on racial distinction and Vedic superiority over non- Vedic racial groups. But it failed to produce long-term effects.
That was mainly because Buddhism did not try to abolish caste as a social institution. Buddha argued against caste but did not evolve a theory to counter it. As E.J. Thomas rightly said, “There was no reason why he should do so insofar as his teaching could be enforced that the true Brahmin was the virtuous Brahmin. But within the order caste did disappear and there are many instances of low caste persons being admitted as monks.” He believed that by insisting upon virtue, caste distinctions would, by a natural process, disappear.