Regional Dimension of Stratification

The division of kamma (work) and sippa (craft) into low and high in the Pacittiya passage of the Vinaya Pitaka already cited throws some light on the Buddhist view of stratification. Low kamma is defined as kotthaka kammam (work of a storeroom keeper), and pupphachaddaka kammam (work of a flower sweeper), or ‘what is disdained, disregarded, scorned, treated with contempt and despised in these district.’^[1] High work is defined as kasi (agriculture), vanijja (trade), and gorakkha (cattle keeping) or what is not disdained... not despised in the area.^[2] It is evident from this passage that the Buddhists were reflecting an existing conception of high and low prevalent in the region where Buddhism was located. In the same way, in the case of the sippas too the division into high and low sippas is related to what was disained and despised in the region and what was not. Thus, we have the nalakara sippam (craft of the basket-maker), kumbhakara sippam (craft of the potter), commakara sippam (craft of the leatherworker), nahapita-sippam (craft of the barber), and pesakara sippam (craft of the weaver) rater as low; and mudda (reckoning on the fingers), ganana (accounting) and lekha (writing) were classified as high.^[3] The significant point in the context of the jati division into hina (low) and ukkatta (high) is that the additional factor of what was disdained and despised does not appear. It can be argued that the notion of high and low in the case of jati was not related to a specific area but was more widely prevalent, unlike the case kamma and sippa, where regional differences were recognized. The regional criteria of ranking touched upon by Dumont^[4] is already noticeable in the Buddhist texts, where kamma and sippa divisions of high and low were related to an area within which a similar system of ranking was prevalent.