The Household Group

Before we proceed with the position of the members within the household group, it is necessary to deal briefly with the implications of the sequences referring to kinship and quasi-kinship fond in the text. Taken together, they apparently donate the total extent of a man’s relationships. But this is not all. We find that persons mentioned in the sequences vary from one instance to another depending on the context in which they are used. From this we may argue that in each of the sequences taken separately there is a gradually expanding circle of recognition of kinship and quasi-kinship, although the recognition itself depends on the context in which it is accorded. If we examine some of these contexts, we may find functional kinship and quasi-kinship groups that exist within the society. The following instances will make the arguments obvious.

The mother and father (mata-pita), son and wife (putta-d ara), slaves (dasa) household servants constitute the household group. In the instance where a good man (sappuriso) is defined as acting for the benefit and welfare of the whole sequence of beneficiaries consists of the mother and father (mata pitunam), son and wife (putta daram), slaves (dasa), household servants (kammakaraporisa), friends and acquaintances (mitta maccanam), ancestors (pubbapetanam), the king (ra nnanam), the gods (dev anam), the recluses (samana brahmananam),^[1] In the case of Dhananjani we find that he is accused of not being diligent, but defends himself by saying that he should support (posetabba) mother and father, son and wife, slaves (dasa) househo1d servants (kammakaraporiso).^[2] Apart from these, he should fulfil his obligations to (karaniyam kattabbam).^[3] There is thus a significant difference between the responsibility to support (posetabba) and to fulfil obligations (karaniyam kattabham).^[4]

In another instance when the wife of a merchant of Rajagaha is treated by the doctor Jivaka, those who give gifts to the doctor in gratitude include the merchant’s wife (setthi bhariya), her son (putta), her son’s wife (sunha) and the merchant (setthi gahapati) who gives the most. Other subordinate members of the household, such as the gate keeper (dvarapala) and slaves are mentioned, but they do not give gifts. Instead the merchant makes a gift of a male and female slave. Gahapati Mendaka’s house (ghara) consists of wife (bhariya), son (putta), son’s wife (sunha), slaves and household servants; all, except the household servants, are described as possessing psychic power (iddhi).^[5] The Buddha tells Anathapindika that alms are given by thank-offering for the enjoyment of good food (ularvaya bhattabhogaya), clothing (ularvaya vattabhogaya), vehicles (ularvaya yanabhogaya), for the five fold sensual pleasures (ularesu pancesukamagunesu) and for having sons (putta), wives (dara), slaves (dasa), messengers (pessa) and servants (kammakara).^[6] Son (putta), wife (dara), brothers and cousins (bandhava), acquaintances (ammacca) and the caste group (nạ ti samgha) are said to be dependent (anujivino) on a virtuous and believing head of the kula (kulapati).^[7] We find that the two kings seniya Bimbisara and mentioned as accompanied by sons (saputto), wives (sabhariyo), servants (sapuriso) and acquaintances (samacco)^[8] ananda proposes to transmit the last homage of the Malla families of Kusinara to the Buddha through a formula which mentions the acquaintances (mittamacca) and agnates (natisalohita) who console him and promise to reconcile him with the Buddha.^[9] It is the friends and acquaintances (mittamacca) and agnates (natisalohita) who gather round the gahapati Citta who is sick.^[10] The friends and acquaintances (mittamacca) and agnates (natisalohita) of a leper (kutthilapuriso) procure the services of a surgeon to cure him.^[11] On one occasion the Buddha advises, “Listen to those with whom you have sympathy (anukampeyyatha) and to those who think you should listen to them (ye ce sotabbam manneyyam), whether they be friends (mitta va), acquaintances (amacca va) “caste fellows” (nativa) or agnates (salohita va).^[12] In the last instance, the king (raja), and the king’s ministers (rajamahamatta), friends, acquaintances (amacca va) and agnates (natisalohita) are mentioned as tempting the monks to return to lower life by offering them money (bhoga).^[13]

In the context of kinship, the household group is denoted by more than one terms. Kutumbam is one such term, though rarely used. In one instance, we find it used in the case of a gahapati who established his sister’s son by giving him gifts^[14] to the annoyance of his own son, who described the gifts (danam) as his inheritance (d ayajja). The term Kutumba is obviously related in some manner to the concept to dayajja, which is the right of a son, but not of sister’s son. In another instance, a man has two wives (dve pajapatiyo) one barren and another fertile. It is said in this connection that if a wife becomes fertile she becomes the mistress of the whole Kutumba.^[15] Both these instances clarify that the term kut umba refers to the household group in its economic aspect.

Ghara is the another term sometimes used for a household group. Nakula’s father who is ill is worried lest his wife should not be able to keep the household together (gharavasaṃ santharitun’ ti).^[16] On learning of his worry his wife reassures him. She says, among other things, “Do not think; when I am gone the gahapati’s wife (referring to herself) will go to another house (gahapatani macchayena annam gaharam gamissati).”^[17]

Kula is the third term used for the household group. The monks begging alms are usually described as being dependent on household (kulupako hotum) or as going to many households.^[18] Thus Udayi is described as being dependent on household going to many households.^[19] The term kula has been used to denote residence as well. Thus, in giving a simile to the hostile brahmana Ambattha, the Buddha says: “The quail, little bird (sakunika) though she be in her own nest (kulavake), she can say that she likes; it is the same with the sakyas in their own home in Kapilavatthu.”^[20]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

A.N.244; see Ibid., 245 where in the verse it is said, ranno hito devahito natiam sakhinam hito.

[2]:

Mujjhima Nikaya.II.186.

[3]:

Ibid.

[4]:

Ibid.

[5]:

Ibid., I.240.

[6]:

Anguttara Nikaya.IV.396.

[7]:

Ibid., IV.152.

[8]:

Digha Nikaya. I.116, 133.

[9]:

Vinaya.II.126.

[10]:

Samyutta Nikaya.IV.302-3.

[11]:

Mujjhima Nikaya.I.506.

[12]:

Anguttara Nikaya.I.222.

[13]:

Samyutta Nikaya.IV.190; V.300-1.

[14]:

Vinaya.III.66-67, Kutumbanca santha pesi dananca petthapesi.

[15]:

Ibid., sabbassa kutumbassa issara bhavissati.

[16]:

Anguttara Nikaya.III.295.

[17]:

Ibid., 96.

[18]:

Samyutta Nikaya.II.200.

[19]:

Vinaya.IV.20, kulupako hoti bahukulani upasam kamati.

[20]:

Digha Nikaya.I.91.