<!--QuoteBegin-ashyam+Mar 30 2008, 11:19 AM-->QUOTE(ashyam @ Mar 30 2008, 11:19 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now my question is, is the caste or untouchability part of the story a colonial plant?[right][snapback]80165[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Buddhism has lots of early narratives that inspire ethical behaviour, many of them written some centuries after Buddha himself. The one you refer to could be part of such original narratives concerning Buddha or the Buddha-minded and not have anything to do with colonialism. It could even be one of the historical events concerning Buddha.
IMO, I don't think it's colonialism. Buddhism did make points on caste (it's just that in practise it showed less energy and vigour than it did when considering the matter in theory alone). Anyway, bottom line was (despite what history rewriters today say), early Brahmanas, Buddhists and Jainas were all similar: the ascetics of Dharmic society. Not many/not enough of these broke out of theory into making effective changes in practise.
If you look in China, the southern Chinese were regarded as barbarians by the Han of the north. There's the famous tale of the Buddhist trying to convince a northern king of the Dhamma, during which he also tries to explain how being a southern brown "barbarian" doesn't exclude one from the wisdom of the Dhamma (so that the Han should realise that the southern Chinese were capable of being spiritually equal, despite any differences in appearance). The discussion was all good and well, of course - but in practise, it made little difference. It's relatively easy to convince one individual, but to convince all of society to give up on prejudices is harder and takes more organised effort. Not to mention time.
IMO, I don't think it's colonialism. Buddhism did make points on caste (it's just that in practise it showed less energy and vigour than it did when considering the matter in theory alone). Anyway, bottom line was (despite what history rewriters today say), early Brahmanas, Buddhists and Jainas were all similar: the ascetics of Dharmic society. Not many/not enough of these broke out of theory into making effective changes in practise.
If you look in China, the southern Chinese were regarded as barbarians by the Han of the north. There's the famous tale of the Buddhist trying to convince a northern king of the Dhamma, during which he also tries to explain how being a southern brown "barbarian" doesn't exclude one from the wisdom of the Dhamma (so that the Han should realise that the southern Chinese were capable of being spiritually equal, despite any differences in appearance). The discussion was all good and well, of course - but in practise, it made little difference. It's relatively easy to convince one individual, but to convince all of society to give up on prejudices is harder and takes more organised effort. Not to mention time.
Death to traitors.