Social Stratification Based on Kula, Kamma and Sippa

It is obvious that the importance of jati was acknowledged by the Buddhist in the context of marriage and birth. The Buddhists recognized a system of stratification for the social world where kula, kamma and sippa were either high or low. A person was placed in the social system as either high or low considering the kind of family one originated from and the nature of work one performed. The basis of this categorization of kula, kamma and sippa into high and low was focused on certain principles. The foremost one includes those who work for themselves as owners and producers and are ranked high in the Buddhist system, whereas those who work for others are regarded as low. In this Buddhism did not similarize the existing Brahmanical notions. The Brahmanical system ranked economic functions below religious and political functions.^[1] On the other hand, the Buddhists gave similar importance to economic, religious and political functions. Brahmanical texts refer to the vaishyas or the economic groups as an eminently exploitable category, to be oppressed at the will of the higher vannas.^[2]

The Buddhists, in contrast, always treated the gahapati as an eminently respectable category. Consistent with this, the occupations of agriculture, cattle-keeping and trade were rated high, whereas those who performed services for others such as storeroom-keepers (Kootthaka kammakara), and flower sweepers (pupphachaddaka), were low. Secondly, among the sippas there is a division of high and low corresponding to non-manual and manual skills, since mudda, ganana and lekha (counting, accounting and writing) were ranked high, whereas basket making, pottery, leatherwork, weaving and the work of a barber was low. Thirdly, the Buddhists exhibited some notions of racial superiority since aboriginal groups like the nica kulas or the hina jatis (candala, pukkusa, vena, ratthakara and nesada)^[3] who were probably associated with low material culture were given a low rank.^[4] The Buddhists gave prior importance to purity of blood and unblemished lineage.

The irrelevancy of the social distinctions has not been indicated in the Buddhist texts. The texts comprise the idea that wealth, eminence, beauty and wisdom was associated with high kulas whereas poverty, stupidity and ugliness were associated with low kulas. In the Balapandita sutt, the Buddha states ‘if at some time or other that fool came to human status again, he would be born into those families that are low; a candala family, or a ratthakara family, or a pukkusa family; in such a family as is needy, without enough to eat and drink, where as covering for the back is obtained with difficulty. Moreover, he would be ill-favoured, ugly, dwarfish, sickly, bind, or deformed, or lame or paralysed; he would be unable to get food, drink, vehicles, garlands, scents, perfumes, bed, dwelling and lights.^[5] In contrast, if a wise man was reborn, ‘He would be born into one of those families that are high: a rich khattiya family or a family of rich brahmanas, or a family of rich gahapatis, in such a family as is well to do, of great possessions, of great resources, with abundant gold and silver, abundant means, abundant wealth in grains. In addition to it, we would be lovely, good to look upon, charming, endowed with the greatest beauty of complexion; he would be unable to get food, drink, vehicles, garlands, scents, perfumes, bed dwelling and lights.^[6] The Buddhists suggested that the only way of escaping from this system of stratification was by leading a virtuous and generous life in this existence and that is how one ensure rebirth with an improved social status in the next.^[7]

In other sense, one can escape from the system of stratification if he joins the sangha and renounces the social world. It has been pointed out by Bougle that by the adoption of the vows of mendicancy and chastity bhikkhus turned away from the work of production (or economic effort) and reproduction (family life).^[8] It has already been clarified that there is existence of stratification in Buddhism, both in the context of marriage and occupation. Therefore, one cannot escape from becoming part of the system of stratification because in the social world everyone has to be involved both in production and with reproduction. It is only bhikku who could possibly evade from the system because both the nature of occupation and endogamous marriage are irrelevant for him.^[9]

It has been earlier pointed out by us that a complex system of ranking is not displayed by the Buddhist society. The elaborate design of the Brahmanical system is missing. Instead, we have simpler two-tier system of stratification with a conception of high and low working separately in the context of jati, kula, kamma and sippa. The idea that all these strands can be woven into a comprehensive system with birth, race, occupation and service being accommodated in it clearly does not exist in the Buddhist texts. This was probably because at the time of the early Pali canon, caste was in an embryonic state. It was still in the process of being formulated and did not yet have all the characteristics that it was to exhibit later.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vaishyas Dharmasutra, The Sacred Laws of the Aryas, S.B.E., Vol. XIV, p.11.

[2]:

Aitereya Brahmana, XXXV.

[3]:

R. Fick, The Social Organization of North-East India in Buddha’s Time, p. 324.

[4]:

Pacittiya, p. 11; M.N. III, p. 240.

[5]:

M.N., III, p.240; M.L.S., III, p. 215.

[6]:

M.N., III, p. 240; M.L.S., III, p. 215.

[7]:

M.N., III, p. 282-4; S.N., I, pp. 92-6.

[8]:

Celestin Bougle, Essays on the Caste System, p. 73.

[9]:

Ibid.