I forgot where exactly I read this, but it was a claim that e.g. Buddhism and Hinduism were created by members of the ruling caste in order to justify the way they could take possessions from the lower castes. The principle of non-attachment would allow them to do this without the lower classes complaining. What do you think of this? Personally I don´t believe it. Discuss
Well Buddhism to Hinduism is a bit like what Early Christianity was to Judaism at the time. The trouble is what gets done with these philosophies later, not usually the original idea. I don't think Buddhism could be classed the same as Hinduism in this repsect but then which school of Buddhism do you mean? The principal of non-attachment doesn't just apply to workers but all classes and so if everyone were non-attached there would be no systems of exploitation, materialism and classes anyway.
Well that's what I mean, if everyone were non-attached there would be no systems of exploitation, materialism and classes anyway. The thing is that, in India, there were, and therefore some argue that the higher castes created these religions to make the workers unattached so that they would somehow be ok with being exploited. As for the school of Buddhism, that isn't really relevant as the claim is that Buddhism as a whole was created in order to justify the way they could take posessions from the lower castes. But as I said I don't believe it, I was just wondering what you guys thought.
