Empirical Relevance of Vanna, Jati and Kula

A significant characteristic of the term vanna is that it appears only in the context of abstract divisions of society into various social categories. No evidence of it being used in any concrete situation^[1] has been found. No one is ever described as belonging to the brahmana vanna, khattiya vanna or sudda vanna. It seems to have remained a theoretical concept without any parallel in actual practice. On the other hand, the appearance of the term jati and kula can be found in concrete situations regularly. The Buddha refers to himself as of the sakhya jati^[2] and so do others. The Buddha for being of the sakya jati^[3] is repeatedly abused by the young brahmana Ambattha when he is sent by his teacher to meet the Buddha. Other brahmanas refer Ambattha himself as a dujjato (of low birth) when they found that he is a descendant of a slave girl.^[4] Sundarika Bharadvaja asks the Buddha to which jati he belongs^[5] when sees the Buddha for the first time.

In the same way, king Bimbisara is convinced from his appearance which he sighted from a distance that the Buddha could only be of khattiya jati. When asked about his jati, and it is from that kula that he was ‘gone forth’.^[6] The Buddha asks the newly recruited bhikkus Vasettha and Bharadvaja in another interesting reference as to whether being brahmanas or not joining the sangha.^[7] In the Majjhim Nikaya the brahmana Canki refers to the Buddha as being sujato (of pure birth), as one who went forth from an adina khattiya kula (a leading khattiya family), and who is thereby worthy of being shown respect.^[8]

Some relationship between the terms jati and kula is clear the references cited above. This can be noticed more in the sundarikabharadaja sutta. Buddha replies when questioned about his jati that even the fact of having originated in a nice kula (low family) is irrelevant in the case of a muni.^[9]

The two terms must have been closely linked for the Buddha to use kula in answer to a question on jati. To sum up, it can be pointed out that the vanna divisions comprised a purely conceptual scheme which had no actual application, and that jati was both a conceptual and actual scheme of categories based on ascribed status. Nevertheless, the kula divisions really seemed to matter to the Buddhists. When the Buddhists themselves wished to hind social stratification, the kula categories were used more often than the jati. We have instances of good behaviour and wisdom as well being rewarded with rebirth in the high kulas of khattiya, brahmanas and gahapatis^[10]; the opposite characteristics on the other hand would result in rebirth in the low kulas of candalas, nesadas, venas, ratthakaras, and pukkusas.^[11]

The absence of certain categories of the Brahmanical scheme of stratification is a problem in the context of empirical verifiability. The khattiyas and brahmanas are the only two of the social groups of the Brahmanical scheme that are verifiable as existing categories in the Buddhist texts. The vessa and sudda categories on the other hand, are theoretical groups which are not possible to locate. Fick is quite doubtful about the actual importance of these groups during the period for which the Pali texts furnish an account. He argues that the occurrence of the expressions vessa and suddai can be seen only in passages where there is a theoretical discussion about caste, but there is nothing that points to their real existence.^[12] The occurrence of both terms is occasionally in the jati system of classification but their association is more often with the vanna division of society. In the Brahmanical texts the association of the vessa is with agriculture, cattle-keeping, and trade, and the sudda with service.^[13] In the Buddhist texts there is no association of the Vessas with agriculture, cattle-keeping or trade, or any association with service referred to as suddas. Instead the Buddhist texts associate agriculture with the gahapati, the cattle keeper is described as a gopaka, and the term vanijja is used for the trader.^[14] The setthi was another significant category in the Buddhist literature but none of these specific economic groups are in any way linked with the vessas. In the same way, while there are no suddas there are many references to dasas and kammakaras who are connected not with service of the higher vannas but with rendering labour for their masters who are almost invariably gahapatis.

The low status groups include the absence of certain categories as well which are empirically identifiable. It is just the suddas who are not perceived but the hina jatis or nina kulas of the Buddhist texts are also not recognized in real situations. Except for the lone example of Mat anga, who was reffered to as condalaputto sopako^[15], nesadas, ratthakaras, venas and pukhusas do not exist as real people. Instead, names were often associated with a profession which had similarities with one of these categories; but the terms themselves were never used. For instance, the bhikkhu sunita is not called a pukkusa^[16] although he is from a low origin and performed the work of a puppachaddaka. There are instances of nalakaras (basket weavers) as well who are described as being in their own settlement^[17], and of a bhikkhu, who committed suicide after accidentally failing upon a vilivakarang (basket maker)^[18] and killing him; but there is no mentioning of the term Vena in either situation. In the same way, there are references to specific hunting groups like the sakunika (flower), and kevatta (fisherman)^[19], but there are no identifiable nesadas.

We come to the conclusion from the above cited evidence that the occupational divisions among people^[20] were the significant factors in Buddhist society for purposes of identification, specifically for the service groups. A person provided the basic identity of individuals actually performed the function. The Buddhist texts clearly hint that the categories that can be located as having an existential reality were either the various occupational divisions like barber, metal smith worker, potter, etc., or the categories of bramana, and gahapati. A few examples can be cited to substantiate the point. Thus Tapussa and Bhallika are referred to as Vanijjas^[21] (traders); Dhaniya gopaka^[22] (cattle-keeper); Cunda as a kammaraputta^[23] (son of a metal worker); a certain monk is referred to as having once been a nahapita^[24] (barber) and the Digha Nikaya refers to a nahapita called Bhesika^[25]; Ghatikara and Dhaniya^[26] are referred to as Kumbhakaras (potters). This association with occupation is particularly true for those groups normally considered to be of low status in Buddhist society.

On the other hand, the status identification of groups which were ranked high in Buddhist literature correspond to the kula divisions of the khattiyas, brahmanas and gahapatis. There are many instances of clans referring to themselves as Khattiyas, apart from the examples cited where the Buddha is referred to as a khattiya. In the Mahaparinibbana sutta various clans come forward and ask for a share of the Buddhas ashes saying ‘mayam pi khattiya’^[27] (we too are khattiyas). The terms brahmana and gahapati appear too frequently as status terms to explain separately but it is significant to note that the brahmanas had most definitely emerged as a distinct social group who strongly asserted their Brahmanical identity as being based on ascribed status. This was the thrust of many of their discussions with the Buddha. But it is equally clear the brahmanas of Buddhist literature were not necessarily associated with the performance of ritual or with the pursuit of religious goals at all.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Except when it is used in the sense of colour or complexion.

[2]:

Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya, Vol. I, p. 330.

[3]:

Ambattha is angry with the sakyas for not having treated him properly on an earlier occasion (D.N., I, p. 79).

[4]:

D.N., I, p.83.

[5]:

Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya, Vol. I, p. 334.

[6]:

Ibid.

[7]:

D.N., III, p. 63.

[8]:

D.N., II, p. 430.

[9]:

S.N., I, p. 167; Sutta Nikaya, Khuddaka Nikaya, Vol. I, pp. 334-336.

[10]:

M.N., III, p. 248.

[11]:

Ibid., p. 240.

[12]:

R. Fick, The Social Organization of North-East India in Buddha’s Time, p. 252. See also Wagle, Society at the Time of the Buddha, p. 133.

[13]:

Vashistha Dharmasutra, S.B.E., Vol. XIV, p. 11; Baudhayana Dharmasutra, S.B.E.,Vol.XIV, p.199; Gautama Dharmasutra, S.B.E., Vol. II, pp. 232-3.

[14]:

Mahavagga, pp. 5-6, 255; Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya, Vol. I, p.270.

[15]:

Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya, Vol. I, p. 289. It may be pointed out that Matanga is a mythical character in the account where the reference occurs, and the reference to him as a condalaputto may be constructed as being used in an abstract sense. (According to a personal communication from D. Devahuti it is used as a generic term for shudra and occurs as such in Harsa’s time). The term condala was probably gaining currency in this period to connote the notion of low as a value in society. In the same way the Digha Nikaya describes a sudda stationing himself at a cross road and giving orders like a king (D.N., I, p. 90). The whole situation in the narration is treated as ridiculous and, in our view, the instance suggests that here also the sudda represents the notion of low in society, in opposition to what is high. Both Candala and sudda have been used in the Buddhist texts, in the situations described above to represent the value of low in an abstract sense. The early Buddhist period appears to be one in which the two poles of the system of inequality were being defined. The poles ultimately crystallized in the form of the brahmana at one end and the Candala at the other. If the Candalas were a tribe who were originally on the margin of aryans and were despised for this, over a period of time whether they actually survived as a distinct identifiable group or not, they became a symbol of the idea of low as a value. Subsequently with the crystallization of the caste system, tribe, race, occupation and distinct cultural traits, were synthesized into a system with the Candala occupying the lowest status in society. The Buddhists, as is usual with them, use the vocabulary of the brahmanas which they infuse with their own meaning. Candala is used by the Buddhists to express a moral value and not to indicate low birth. In a hard-hitting attack on the brahmanas the Buddha turns the tables on them. He applies the term brahmana candala for a brahmana who leads an immoral and depraved existence but claims at the same time that he can remain undefiled and pure, like the fire which burns unclean things but remains pure in spite of it (A.N., II, p.472).

[16]:

Nice kulamhi jato aham daliddo appabhojano, hinan kammam namam asi, ahosim puppha-chaddako (Theragatha, Khuddaka Nikaya, Vol. II, p.330).

[17]:

M.N., II, pp. 478-9.

[18]:

Parajika, p.101.

[19]:

S.N., II, p.212; M.N., I, p.315.

[20]:

In the Vasettha sutta the Buddha states that brahmanas who follow various occupations are agriculturists (kassako), traders (vanijjo), cattle keepers (gorakkho) etc. according to their respective work or occupation (kamma) (sutta NIpata, Khuddaka Nikaya, Vol.I, pp.364-5)

[21]:

Mahavagga, pp. 5-6.

[22]:

Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya, Vol. I, p. 270.

[23]:

D.N., II, p. 98.

[24]:

Mahavagga, p. 262.

[25]:

D.N., I, p.191.

[26]:

M.N., II, p. 272; Parajika, p.51.

[27]:

D.N., II, p. 126-7.