Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha's Time c8: Chapter II. General View of the Castes

The Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha's Time c8

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. General View of the Castes

c8.2

If we first seek, on the basis of quotations which relate to castes in general, a conception of their meaning, and of their relation to one another, we are confronted at first sight with a circumstance which seems to give the lie direct to the introductory words—the circumstance, namely, that even in the Pali canon we find the Brâhmanical caste-theory. The division of Indian society into four castes is in no way unknown to Buddhist literature.

c8.3

"Just so, you monks"—with these words Buddha teaches his disciples in the Cullavagga of the Vinaya-Piṭaka (IX, 1, 4) about the relation of the castes to the Order—"just as the great rivers, such as, the Gaṅgā, the Yamunā, the Aciravatī, the Sarabhū and the Mahī, when they pour their waters into the great ocean, lose their names and origins and become the great ocean, precisely so, you monks, do these four castes, the Khattiya (=Skr. Kshatriya), the Brâhmaṇa, the Vessa (=Skr. Vaiśya) and Sudda (=Skr. Sûdra) when they pass, according to the doctrines and prescriptions of those who have attained perfection, from home to homelessness,

c8.4

lose their names and origins and take from here onward the name samaṇa attaching to the son of Sakya.”

c8.5

In Kaṇṇakathâla Sutta (No. 90 of the Majjhima Nikâya) the following words were put into the mouth of Buddha: “These are the four castes, O great king: Khattiya, Brâhmaṇa, Vessa and Sudda. Of these four castes, O great king, two stand in the front rank, namely, the Khattiya and the Brâhmaṇa, so far as relates to the salute, the seat to be offered, the extension of the folded hands and the service to be rendered.”

c8.6

The Assalâyana Sutta,¹ which tries to prove the worthlessness of the castes, likewise speaks of four castes: “Once stopped”—so it begins—“the Holy at Sâvatthi, in Jetavana, the park of Anâthapiṇḍika. At that time there lived in Sâvatthi five hundred Brâhmaṇas hailing from different places for some religious purpose; among them there was a rumour that this hermit (samaṇa) Gotama proclaimed the purity of the four castes. Who is in a position to challenge the samaṇa Gotama with regard to this question?” As the Sutta proceeds, this division is surely not always observed: the author is occasionally—as if unconsciously and perhaps against his will —forced by reality to mention, by the side of the Khattiyas and the Brâhmaṇas, the Râjannas¹ and as lower castes, the Caṇḍâla, Nesâda, Veṇa, Rathakâra and Pukkusa; but the existence of the four castes is still the tacit assumption which is in no way given up even in the admission which Gotama at the end of his dispute forces the Brâhmaṇa Assalâyana to make, namely, that caste is worthless and that the claim of the Brâhmaṇas to be the best caste is untenable.

c8.7

¹ Ed. and transl. by Richard Pischel, Chemnitz, 1880.

c8.8

¹ Cf. with this the remark in the sixth chapter.

c8.9

The same subject is also handled in the Madhura Sutta² (No. 84 of the Majjhima Nikâya) and to some extent the same words are used. The king Madhura Avantiputta betakes himself to Samaṇa Kaccâna and puts to him the question: “The Brâhmaṇas, Kaccâna, maintain that the Brâhmaṇa is the best caste and every other caste is low, that the Brâhmaṇa is the white caste and every other caste is black, that the Brâhmaṇas are pure and not the non-Brâhmaṇas, that the Brâhmaṇas are the favourite sons of Brahma, that they are born out of his mouth, born of Brahma, successors of Brahma. What do you say to this, Kaccâna?” And Kaccâna replies that caste neither assures material success in life nor makes any difference with regard to the punishment or happiness that awaits after death, that it does not protect wrong-doers from the punishment prescribed by law and that above all, for the homeless ascetics it is a matter of indifference. But here, too, the argument rests upon the four castes and the result is, not that these four castes do not exist but only that they are all the same. The thought that a Brâhmaṇa does not occupy a special place by reason of his birth but that virtue alone constitutes a true Brâhmaṇa, recurs also in the Jâtakas; in many ways the theme of the worthlessness of the castes is varied and an opportunity given to the narrator for lengthy discussions on the caste. Especially, the Uddâlaka Jâtaka deals in a most penetrating way with the caste question. "A long time ago, when Brahmadatta ruled in Benares, the Bodhisatta¹ was appointed his house priest, on account of his scholarship and intelligence. The latter saw one day in a pleasant spot in the park an extremely beautiful courtesan and fell in love with her. She became pregnant (with his child) and when she recognised her condition, she said to him, "O Lord, I have received a live fruit; when it is born I will give the child the name of its grandfather." He reflected, “A child which is born of a low woman cannot possibly be given the family name” and said to her, “My love, this tree here is called Uddâla; because you have got your child here, you may call it Uddâlaka”. Then he gave her a signet ring and continued, “If you get a daughter, bring her up with this, if you get a son, you can show him to me after he is grown up”. She gave birth some time later to a son and named him Uddâlaka. When this son grew up, he asked his mother, “Dear mother, who is my father?” “The *purohita*, my son.” “If that is the case, I will study the Vedas”. With this resolution, he took the ring and the honorarium for his teacher from his mother and went to Takkasilâ and read there with a world-renowned teacher. At the sight of a crowd of ascetics, the thought occurred to him, “These must be in possession of the highest knowledge, I must learn it from them”; full of desire for knowledge, he adopted the homeless state, rendered all manner of service to the ascetics and prayed that they might teach him their wisdom. They taught him according to the measure of their wisdom, but among the five hundred ascetics there was not a single one who excelled him in intelligence; he was the wisest among them all. Therefore they agreed and made him their chief.

c8.10

² Ed. and transl. by Robert Chalmers in the “Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society” 1894, p. 394 sq.

c8.11

¹ Skr. Bodhisattwa, i.e., Buddha in one of his former existences.

c8.12

He said, however, to them, "Brothers, you live permanently in the woods and eat the roots and fruits of the forest; why don't you tread the soil of men?" "Brother, men want, as soon as they have given us alms, to hear in return the doctrine (*dhamma*) from us; they put questions to us and for fear of this we don't go there". "Brothers, even if a world-conqueror should come, as you have me, let the answer be my care and do not fear". With these words, he betook himself with them to the route followed by them in begging and gradually reached Benares; here he stopped in the park of the king and went next day a-begging in the company of all to a village provided with a door. The people gave them copious alms; next day, the ascetics came to the city where, too, abundant alms fell to their lot. The ascetic Uddâlaka gave the thanks, pronounced the benedictions and answered the questions. The people were greatly edified, gave the ascetics liberally, as much as they wanted. Throughout the town the rumour spread that a wise teacher and pious ascetic had come; people narrated this even to the king. The latter asked where he was staying and when he heard that he was staying with the rest of the ascetics in the park, he said, "Good, I will go and see him to-day". Somebody announced to Uddâlaka that the king was coming to see him. He called together the host of wise men and said to them, "Dear brothers, if one wins a prince even for a single day, this is enough for his whole life". "What, however, shall we do, O teacher?" He gave them the following advice: Some of you should behave like a bat¹; some of you should sit with folded legs and practise penance, some should lie on a bed of thorns, some should practise the penance relating to the five fires², others should plunge into the water, still others should recite verses in different places". They did accordingly. He himself, however, sat with eight or ten learned men, sourrounded by disciples upon a space specially prepared for this and placed a book upon a beautiful desk. In a moment the king came to the park with the purohita, surrounded by a large number of men, and as he saw the false ascetics practising penance, he reflected, "They are all free from all fear of misery," went to Uddālaka, seated himself by his side after accosting him with reverence, and began the following conversation with the purohita in a happy spirit:

c8.13

¹ vaggulivatam carantu. What is to be understood by this expression, I cannot state exactly; it seems to indicate a special kind of posture, by which the holy man in question performs a vow, just as is the case with the 'cock-holies' mentioned by Oldenberg (Buddha p. 69) who pick out their food like cocks and behave always like cocks.

c8.14

² pañcatapam, "the five tapas". These are the four fires directed towards the four directions and the sun which shines above.

c8.15

“These here, who wear coarse skins, have long tufts of hair and recite verses with unclean teeth and dirty face, are they really, as they recognise this (that is, penances) as the duty of men, free from misery?”

c8.16

When the purohita heard this, he said to himself, “This king is favourably disposed towards wrong persons; I must not remain silent” and so he recited the second verse:

c8.17

“When, O king, a learned man does an evil act, does not live virtuously, he cannot, even if he knows a thousand Vedas, be free from misery without finding the right path.”

c8.18

When Uddâlaka heard these words, he reflected: “The king is in every way pleased with this host of holy persons; this Brâhmaṇa, however, strikes the running ox in the mouth; filth is thrown upon the prepared meal. I will speak to him”. He recited the third verse directed towards the purohita:

c8.19

“If when a man knew a thousand Vedas and yet could not be free from misery, so long as he did not know the right path, my opinion is, that the Vedas are useless, the path of self-restraint is the truth”.

c8.20

To this the purohita replied :

c8.21

"The Vedas are not in any way useless, nor is the path of self-restraint undoubtedly the truth : for he who studies the Vedas attains fame, whereas he attains only peace who restrains himself in his life".

c8.22

When Uddālaka heard this, he meditated, "Towards this man here I cannot in any way adopt an attitude of hostility; if I tell him that I am his son, he cannot but show love to me; I will make myself known to him". He recited the fifth verse :

c8.23

"Parents and other kinsmen one should support; he to whom one owes one's origin is identical with oneself; I am Uddālaka, sprung from thy Brāhmaṇa family".

c8.24

The former asked, "Are you really Uddālaka", and as the latter answered in the affirmative, he said "I have given thy mother a mark of identity, where is it ?" With the words, "Here is it, O Brāhmaṇa," Uddālaka reached him the ring. The Brāhmaṇa recognised the ring and said "Surely, you are a Brāhmaṇa¹, do you know however, the duty of a Brāhmaṇa ?" In asking him about the duty of a Brâhmaṇa, he uttered the sixth verse:

c8.25

¹ Cf. what is said below at p. 35. Another reading omits brāhmaṇa ; probably, to the writer the express recognition of a bastard as a Brāhmaṇa was repugnant; this omission makes no difference with regard to the fact that the purohita looks upon his illegitimate son as belonging to his caste.

c8.26

“Tell me who a Brâhmaṇa is, how he becomes perfect, how extinction¹ takes place and what is to be understood by the righteous.”

c8.27

¹ parinibbâna, Skr. parinirvâṇa, the attainment of Nirvâṇa, the extinction, abnegation of self.

c8.28

Upon this, Uddâlaka explained in the seventh verse:

c8.29

“Rejecting (all worldly thoughts), taking the fire with him, sprinkling water, offering sacrifices, the Brâhmaṇa sets up the sacrificial post. Acting in this way he attains peace of mind, and for this reason he is called virtuous.”

c8.30

The purohita replied to him, finding fault with his conception of the duties of a Brâhmaṇa:

c8.31

“The Brâhmaṇa is not pure through the sprinkling of water, nor is he perfect through it, nor does there arise peace or virtuousness, nor does he thereby attain Nirvâṇa”

c8.32

Wishing to know how anybody could be a Brâhmaṇa if not in the way shown by him, Uddâlaka asked, reciting the ninth verse:

c8.33

“How is he a Brāhmaṇa, how does he become perfect, how does he attain Nirvâṇa, what is understood by the righteous?”

c8.34

The purohita taught him in these words:—

c8.35

“Without land, without kinsmen, indifferent to the sensuous world, free from desire, immune from lust, careless of existence, acting in this way, the Brâhmaṇa attains peace of the soul, and so is called virtuous.”

c8.36

On this, Uddâlaka recited the verse :

c8.37

“Khattiya, Brâhmaṇa, Vessa, Sudda, Caṇḍâla and Pukkusa can all be virtuous, self-restrained and can attain nirvâṇa ; is there any among them, when they have all attained peace of the soul, who is better or who is worse ?”

c8.38

To him replied the purohita, in order to show him that the moment Arhatship¹ is attained, inferiority and superiority cease to exist :

c8.39

¹ arahatta, position of an arhat, a holy man, the highest of the four stages in the path of emancipation, complete holiness. Cf. Oldenberg, Buddha, p. 326 Note.

c8.40

“Khattiya, Brâhmaṇa, Vessa, Sudda, Caṇḍâla and Pukkusa can all be virtuous and self-restrained and attain nirvâṇa ; among them, when they have attained peace of the soul, there is no one who is better and no one who is worse”

c8.41

Uddâlaka, however, found fault with him and said :

c8.42

“Khattiya, Brâhmaṇa, Vessa, Sudda, Caṇḍâla and Pukkusa can all be virtuous and self-restrained and attain nirvâṇa ; among them, there is no one who is better or worse, when they have attained peace of the soul. If this

c8.43

is so, then Brahmanism which you hold and your belonging to a family noted for its knowledge of the Vedas, are of no value.”

c8.44

The purohita, however, taught him through a parable and recited two verses :

c8.45

“A tent is covered with fabrics of various colours, but the colour does not follow the shades of the fabrics. So it is also with men ; always men attain purity; the virtuous don’t ask a person about his birth, when they have recognised his piety.”

c8.46

As Uddâlaka could not regain his ground, he sat down, without answering. The Brâhmaṇa however, said to the king : All these, O great king, are cheats, they will ruin the whole of India with their hypocrisy. Make Uddâlaka give up his asceticism and make him my disciple ; make the rest return to their former condition, give them arms and make them your servants.” The king was pleased with this advice of his teacher and so they were all enlisted in the service of the king.

c8.47

The fundamental thought appears in a somewhat different way in Sîlavîmamsa Jâtaka (III. 194 sq). The purohita of the king of Benares wants to examine him with a view to knowing whether he esteems him on account of his virtuousness or on account of his learning. He commits theft, is shown to the king and learns that the latter only esteems him for his virtue. With this knowledge he resolves to renounce the worldly life and with these words takes leave of the king :

c8.48

"Whether virtue is better than learning—about this I had doubts ; that virtue is better than learning, of this I doubt no more.
Birth and caste cause conceit ; verily, is virtue the highest ; he who does not possess virtue, for him learning also has no value.
A Khattiya who has aimed at vice and a Vessa who acts viciously, both come to grief after they have passed away from the world.
Khattiya, Brâhmaṇa, Vessa, Sudda, Caṇḍâla and Pukkusa will be all equal in the world of the gods, if they have acted virtuously here.
Of no value are the Vedas, of no value is birth or kinsmen for the future world, only one's own pure virtue brings him happiness in the next world."

c8.49

The same account of castes and the same conception of their equality, as viewed from the ethical standpoint, meets us in Amba Jâtaka (IV. 205), where it is said :

c8.50

"As a man who seeks juice in the forest considers that tree the best in which he finds

c8.51

it, whether it is the eraṇḍa¹ tree, the pucimanda² tree or the pálibhadda³ tree,

c8.52

¹ Ricinus shrub. ² Skr. picumanda, Azadirachta Indica. ³ Skr. pàlibhadra, Butea Frondosa. ⁴ That in the passages quoted from the Jātakas, not four but six castes, that is, in addition to the official castes of the Brahmanical theory, the two castes, Caṇḍāla and Pukkusa, reckoned among the mixed castes, are enumerated, has for its reason this, that people felt in the circles from which the verses came, the non-reality of the Vessa and Sudda castes and thereby the two hated classes, whose real existence people could perceive everyday, were added. Our position that the Brahmanical caste theory is present even in the Jâtakas is thereby not modified.

c8.53

So also among the Khattiyas, Brâhmaṇas, Vessas, Suddas, Caṇḍālas and Pukkusas, he is the best from whom one can learn what is right.”

c8.54

Thus we meet everywhere in the Pali canon and even in the Jâtakas⁴, although the worthlessness of the castes is emphasised, with the Brahmanical caste theory and the division of society into four castes, the Khattiya, Brâhmaṇa, Vessa and Sudda, as something self-evident, and nowhere is any doubt expressed. Still let us look a little more minutely at these passages. These are, so to speak, academic discussions regarding the value of castes which all only serve—not to give us a picture of Indian society—but to oppose the claim of the Brâhmaṇas to be through their caste in sole possession of truth, of the knowledge of the path of emancipation. In my opinion, there is no more reality in these theoretical speculations than in the theory of the Brâhmaṇas; they are nothing else than a reflex of the priestly literature and show us that the Brahmanical theory was not only well known to the Buddhist monks but was so strongly inbedded in their consciousness, that they could not free themselves from it, although in all probability, they were quite convinced of its incongruence with the real world as well as of the worthlessness of the caste. Moreover, the Buddhist writers never cared in the least to contradict the caste-theory as such and thereby introduce a better organisation of society; what they tried to do was simply to show that caste is of no value for the striving for emancipation.

c8.55

Only this much appears to me to emerge clearly out of these theoretical discussions, that the castes in Buddha’s time and in the eastern lands were an important factor in the social life. The question, in my opinion, can never be of any influence which Buddha’s doctrine of the worthlessness of the castes may have had upon the existing condition of society, of any weakening of the class-oppositions through Buddhism. The conception of the non-existence of caste-distinctions which we notice everywhere in Buddhistic writings, may (at first sight) seem to suggest the thought that we are to see in this peculiarity of the Buddhistic doctrine, a reformatory act of Buddha and have to look upon Buddha as the destroyer of rigid limits fixed by orthodox practice. This view, however, is not at all correct.¹ The castes continued after the spread of the Buddhistic doctrine quite as well as before; the social organisation in India was not in the least altered by Buddha's appearance. We see that there is constant reference to the institution of castes and that not simply in the older portions of the Pali canon. Even the later portions, the commentaries on the Jâtikas bear witness to this, that in the caste-distinctions one has to see a real force, even long after Buddhism had acquired a firm footing and Buddha's doctrine of the worthlessness of castes had found universal acceptance as a means of acquiring emancipation.

c8.56

¹ cf. Koeppen (*Die Religion des Buddha*, Berlin Vol. I. p. 127 sq) against whom the unjustified polemic has been thrust by Hopkins (*The Religions of India*, Boston and London, 1895 p. 586 note) that he saw in Buddha an emancipator, a political reformer. Cf. further Oldenberg's *Buddha* p. 155 sq—When even in the second edition of Ratzel's *Völkerkunde* (Leipzig and Vienna 1895 p. 599), it is said of Buddhism that it "abolished the castes" and not "that it was in a position to check its further growth," it is hoped that it will not be considered beating the air if I polemise against this conception.

c8.57

Even among Buddhist monks we find this conception of the distinction of castes, of the value of high birth, in no way extinguished. As evidence of this, we have the introduction to the Tittira Jâtaka (I. 217 sq.), where it is said that the disciples of the six¹ (chabbaggikâ) requisitioned all places for themselves and their teachers, so that the wisest men who came later got no quarters. When Buddha became aware of this, he called an assembly of monks and put the question, Who deserves to have the best quarters, the best water, the best food? He received from some the reply, "He who was a Khattiya before he became initiated" (khattiya kulâ pabbajito); from others, "He who was a Brâhmaṇa or a gahapati (brâhmaṇakulâ gahapatikulâ pabbajito). Here the three classes looked upon by the Indians are narrated in their order of succession and even though Buddha himself in summing up the debate recognises no privilege grounded on birth, the narrative still shows that in the consciousness of the great majority of the monks the caste distinctions had value. The action of Devadatta² and Kokila mentioned in the introduction to Jambukhâdaka Jâtaka (II. 438) is also evidence of the respect which people had for the higher castes—the action, namely, of their trying to revive their lost reputation.

c8.58

¹ The six monks who in the Vinaya Piṭaka play the rôle of the scoundrel and who try to go aganist Buddha’s prescriptions in every possible way. Cf. Oldenberg, Buddha p. 342 sq.

c8.59

² Buddha’s cousin and rival. See Oldenberg, Buddha p. 162 sq.

c8.60

The two, that is to say, visit the householders, moving from house to house, sing praises of each other and speak with pride of each other, one stating that Devadatta is descended from Mahâsammata¹ and can point to an unbroken succession of princes in the royal house of Okkâka,² the other that Kokila had belonged to a northwestern Brâhmaṇa family before he was initiated (udiccabrâhmaṇakula nikkhamitvâ pabbajito).

c8.61

¹ The traditional name of the first king.

c8.62

² Skr. Ikshvaku, name of a mythical king.

c8.63

But the question whether or not Buddhism has changed the caste-relationships is not of great value for us, as we, starting from the assumption³ that the Jâtakas in their older forms exhibit the social condition of India, as it existed in Buddha’s time, have only made this the subject of our study. In any case, one thing appears very clearly from the passages of a theoretical character quoted above, and that is, that the concept of caste, of *jâti*,⁴ was widely prevalent in Buddha’s time. Consequently, our purpose is not much achieved if we consider how far the views relating to the essence of the caste are divergent, how much the views of the different authors vary here and there, when the question is to determine the concept of caste for a special period of Indian culture-history. Our problem will be to determine what is to be understood by caste in this period and to answer the question: "How far is the concept of caste, as it has come to us from the Brahmanical theory, or as we are accustomed to use it, when we speak of the modern conditions of India, applicable to the *játi* of the Pali texts?"

c8.64

³ Cf. the Preface.

c8.65

⁴ The word jâti, i.e., “birth” is also in Sanskr. the term for the concept “Caste.” By the side of *jâti*, there occurs in the Pali texts in the sense of “caste,” though much more rarely, the word vaṇṇa (= Skr. varṇa) and kula. Cf. Vinaya Piṭaka, ed. by Oldenberg Vol. 2 p. 239, cattâro’ me vaṇṇâ khattiyâ brâhmaṇâ vessâ suddâ-Vol. 3. p. 184 sq. cattâri kulâni, khattiyakulam brâhmaṇakulam, vessakulam suddakulam. The use of kula which as a rule denotes family in the sense of “caste” shows how much the two concepts overlap each other in the consciousness of the Indians and how closely allied they are.

c8.66

We must distinguish between the two concepts, between the modern caste and that which the Brahmanical law-books understand by caste; they do not coincide with each other in any way and it would be a great mistake to make them identical. We cannot also hope to arrive at a universally valid definition by a combination of the two; a definition like this which is true of all stages of evolution of Indian culture, cannot at all be given; we can only try, through a comparison of the different stages which the caste has gone through in the course of centuries, to find persisting, and consequently, probably essential moments, in order, with the help of these, to get an approximate idea of the general meaning of caste in the earlier Buddhistic age. On the other hand, we must not ignore the development of the modern castes and confine ourselves wholly to literary tradition, for it is precisely the modern castes which give us many valuable parallels where the Brahmanical theory leaves us in the lurch, and many conditions of the social life of ancient times are only intelligible to us in the light of the present day.

c8.67

By a caste of modern India, we understand, if I am to adhere in all essentials to the definition given by Senart,¹ a self-contained body which with a certain traditional and independent organisation, has a chief as well as a council, the membership of which is hereditary and which is thus determined not by chance or free selection but by birth, which gathers more or less fully on certain occasions, for instance, in certain festivals, and which is generally held together by a common hereditary calling, which observes the same customs, especially, with regard to marriage, eating and various acts of purification, which, finally, is provided with a judiciary that makes the authority of the corporate body felt principally through the punishment of excommunication. The essential element by which the castes are even now characterised as an order *sui generis* and are distinguished from other similar social groups, is to be sought in the customs relating to the connubium, interdining and contact of impure persons; it is precisely these rules which set up absolute barriers between the innumerable modern castes and thereby give the Indian society its own proper physiognomy.

c8.68

¹ Revue des deux mondes, Tome 121, p. 605.

c8.69

We must at once eliminate, if we wish to determine the concept of caste as it agitated the minds of the authors of the lawbooks, some of the attributes which have only reference to the castes of the present day; they are obviously of modern origin, for neither in the lawbooks nor anywhere else are found any traces which point to their existence in a former age. The caste in the Brahmanical theory is, although no less strictly isolated and self-contained, still externally not so well organised as the modern caste. A chief, a council, we notice as little as common festivals or assemblies for other purposes; what unites the castes of ancient times and isolates them from one another—be it well-understood, according to the theory—is, along with the confinement of every class within a wholly fixed profession, those customs which rule the modern caste. Precise rules with regard to marriage, food and even touch govern the mutual relationship of the castes in its minutest detail and try to prevent their fusion. Thus a Brâhmaṇa, although he is allowed wives of other castes, should have for his first wife one belonging to his own caste; for only such a one can attend to his bodily needs and can stand by his side in the performance of religious rites ¹; she alone assures for the son his belonging to the caste of the father. The Brāhmaṇa is forbidden ² to take food from a man belonging to a lower caste, and as especially impure, the leavings of a Sudra's table ³ are regarded. Even the sight of a despised human being, especially, of a Caṇḍāla, whose touch itself causes impurity ⁴, is sufficient to spoil a Brâhmaṇa's meal ⁵. All these prescriptions have the force of laws, a transgression of which involves special expiatory ceremonies and as the severest expiation, excommunication from the caste.

c8.70

¹ Manu IX. 86: Bhartuḥ śarîraśuśrûshâṃ dharmakâryaṃ ca naityakam svâ caiva kuryât sarveshâm nâsvajâtiḥ kathamcana.

c8.71

² Manu IX. 210 sq; Vasisṭhtha XIV. 1 sq; Âpastamba I.16.22; Gautama XVII 17; Vishṇu LI. 7 sq.

c8.72

³ Manu XI, 153; Vasisṭhtha XIV, 33; Vishṇu LI. 50, 54, 56.

c8.73

⁴ Manu V 85; "If he (a Brâhmaṇa) sees a Caṇḍâla, a menstruating woman, a man excommunicated from the caste, a woman in childbed, a corpse, or a person rendered impure by the touch of a corpse, he will purify himself with a bath.

c8.74

⁵ Manu III, 239: "A Caṇḍâla, a hog, a cock, a dog, a menstruating woman and a eunuch should not be seen by a Brahman while eating.

c8.75

If we can thus see in the practices mentioned here, an essential and permanent characteristic of the caste, we shall—in order now to pass to the caste-relations, as they are described in the Jâtakas—look here for their presence. The scrupulous care with which the proximity of a person belonging to a despised or even a very low caste is avoided is evident in numerous instances contained in the Jâtakas.

c8.76

In Kâlingabodhi Jâtaka (IV. 231), there occurs the following conversation between a king's son living as an ascetic in the forest and a princess likewise seeking shelter with her kinsmen in the forest, whom he sees sitting on a mango tree: "Well, who are you?", he says to her. "I am a human being, gentleman", "Then descend" "That is not possible, my dear sir, I am a Khattiyâ. "Well, I am also a Khattiya, so descend" "That means nothing, my dear sir, nobody is a Khattiya by his word merely; if you are a Khattiya, say the Khattiya formula." ¹

c8.77

¹ Cf. Dhammapadam, ed. Fausböll p. 155. For the explanation of the expression "Khattiya-formula "(Khattiyamâyâ) a practice prevailing among modern castes may be cited, which Jacobi mentions in the "Zeitschrift d. Deutsch. Morgen. Gesellschaft" Vol. 48. p. 417 According to an oral communication from Mr. Grierson, caste in Behar has got its own epic song, romance or ballad, of which everybody knows something and very few know everything.

c8.78

They recited together the Khattiya formula and then it was that the king's daughter descended.

c8.79

The first question which the Brâhmaṇa youth Satadhamma asks a Caṇḍâla who happens to travel the same way with him is about the caste. "To what caste do you belong" (Kimjátiko si II. 82), asks the Brâhmaṇa his travelling companion. "I am a Caṇḍâla", answers the other and asks the Brâhmaṇa the same question. Haughtily comes the latter's reply, "I am a Brâhmaṇa from the northwest" (ahaṃ udicca-brahmaṇo)¹ and it seems to be a wonder when it is further narrated that the two continued to go by the same road. Another person, likewise a youth belonging to a Brâhmaṇa family in the northwest, of whom it is expressly stated that he is very proud of his caste (tassa jātim nissāya mahanto māno ahosi III. 232) exhibits greater anxiety for "atmospheric purification". On his return to the town of Benares he meets a Caṇḍâla. "Who art thou", he asks him and as the latter replies, "I am a Caṇḍâla", he tries to run away from him, for fear lest the wind which has moved through the body of the despised creature should touch him, and cries out loudly, "Damn you, Caṇḍâla, raven of evil omen, move out of the wind."

c8.80

¹ Cf. what is said in the eighth chapter on the Udiccabrâhmaṇa.

c8.81

Of a Brâhmaṇa ascetic whose hermitage lies on the banks of a river, it is said (IV. 388) that one day as he takes water to rinse his mouth, a toothpick floating in the water which a Caṇḍāla living near by has thrown into the water, is caught in a tuft of his hair. He notices it and cries out "Damn you, wretch."¹ With the words, "I will now see whence this evil omen has come," he moves up-stream and as he notices the Caṇḍāla he asks him, "To what caste do you belong." The reply comes, "I am a Caṇḍāla." "You have then thrown the toothpick in the river?" "Indeed, I have," replied the Caṇḍāla, and the Brâhmaṇa said, "Damn you, wretched Caṇḍāla, you bird of evil omen, you shall not live here any longer, move your dwelling down the river."²

c8.82

¹ nassa vasala. The Brâhmaṇa curses, without knowing who has thrown the piece of wood into the stream, the man who has polluted the water through the tooth-pick. That this tooth-pick was hanging from a tuft of his hair is an unfavourable omen for him and as he now learns that a Caṇḍāla has used it, his indignation knows no bounds.

c8.83

² A narrative of a similar kind is found in Vinaya Piṭaka (ed. Oldenberg, Vol. 4, p. 203 sq.).

c8.84

As even in this narrative the pride of the Brâhmaṇa in his caste (jatim nissâya mahantaṃ mânam akâsi) is strongly indicated, it is possible that the scrupulous care with which in the last two cited instances, the contact of the Caṇḍāla is forbidden or the way in which pollution from his proximity is feared, is a manifestation of this pride, this arrogance of caste, and that on the other hand, the proximity of a Caṇḍāla had nothing of the character of a pollution. We find instances in which a Caṇḍāla has intercourse with a high-born without the latter making any objection to this. In Chavaka Jātaka (III p. 27 sq.) it is narrated how a Caṇḍāla in order to get a mango for his pregnant wife, ascended a tree in the park of the king. He was surprised by dawn and continued to sit on the tree, waiting for night. In the meantime, the king came with his teacher, the purohita, to the garden, in order to learn the Vedas; they sat under the mango-tree, the king on a higher and the teacher on a lower seat. When the Caṇḍāla saw this, he descended from the tree and explained the impropriety of their conduct (towards each other). The king was greatly edified by the instruction he received and asked him his caste. "I am a Caṇḍāla, O King." "A great pity,¹ for if you had been born of a higher caste (jāti-sampanno), I would have resigned the sovereignty in your favour; however, I will remain king during the day and you will be king at night." He gave the Caṇḍāla a cross which he himself suspended from his neck and made him the town sentinel (nagaraguttika).

c8.85

¹ Manu, V. 93. "The fault of impurity does not apply to king" cf. ibid, V. 94, 97.

c8.86

Now a king was no doubt permitted intercourse with the Caṇḍāla, for as king he seemed to be placed above the danger of pollution; but even generally, people did not seem to be much afraid of the proximity of such a person, and it is doubtful whether there was a custom or a prescription whereby the higher classes were forbidden contact with the lower or residence in their vicinity, and if such a custom existed,¹ it is doubtful whether it was universally observed and was not rather violated every day and every hour. From the Jātakas what appears clearly is only this, that the fear of such pollution was not confined to Brâhmaṇas proud of their caste. For specially sensitive feminine natures proud of their high descent, the mere sight of a despised person sufficed for the production of the feeling of impurity in their minds. As the daughter of the seṭṭhi, who as the daughter of a gahapati belonged to a respectable but always middle class family and that of a purohita of Ujjayini who had gone to the city gate to play, noticed two Caṇḍāla brothers, they washed their eyes with scented water and returned to the town. The people, to whom on such occasions food and drink were provided gratis, regarded themselves as cheated of a fine meal by the maiden’s going away and so gave the Caṇḍālas such a sound beating that they were almost dead (IV. 391). A similar thing happened to another Caṇḍāla who wanted to go to the gate of Benares, but encountered the daughter of the setthi and attracted by her beauty, stood gazing. The maiden who was peeping through the curtain of the palanquin in which she was carried, saw him and asked, “Who is this?” and as the answer came, “A Caṇḍāla, noble one,” she washed her eyes with scented water, saying, “Oh, I see something which I should not see” and went back. Her escort struck the Caṇḍāla with his hands and feet till he fell down (IV. 378).

c8.87

¹ That the law-books contain such a prescriptiou for the Brâhmaṇas has been already mentioned. This, however, does not prove its existence at the time and in the places with which we have to deal.

c8.88

It is clear that the impurity of a person extended to the objects touched by him; this was especially the case with everything that had reference to food. When we remember how great a religious importance the meal had at all times for the Aryans, how eating together served as an external sign of sameness of blood, it seems possible to assume that this principle of the exclusion of all impure people from the common table came from ancient times, was carried from the family over to the caste and was here developed with great precision. It should not, however, be overlooked that traces of such an exclusion of low persons from participation in the meal, as we see it in India to-day, are only found, when they are found at all in the Jâtakas, extremely rarely. The only passage which serves as evidence of the presence of special rules and customs relating to a common table, does not occur in a Jâtaka but in a paccuppannavatthu, in the introductory explanation in Bhaddasâla Jâtaka (IV. 144 sq.). Here it is narrated that the messengers of the Kosala king, sent to the Sâkiyas of Kapilavatthu, in order to bring a girl of this family for their chief, express doubts about the purity of her birth; they are afraid of being cheated by the Sâkiyas who are proud of their family and so demand that the girl should dine with them. The Sâkiyas who as a matter of fact, wanted to pass on to them an illegitimate girl, namely, a Vâsabhakhattiyâ, the daughter of Mahânâma and a slave, are embarrassed and don't know what to do. Mahânâma says that they should not give themselves any trouble about the matter, for he knew a method: when he was eating, they should bring the Vâsabhakhattiyâ, adorned with her ornaments, and as soon as he swallowed one mouthful, show him a letter with the words : "O prince, King so and so sent a letter, hear first this message." The Sâkiyas are satisfied with the plan and when Mahânâma sits at his dinner, they adorn the maiden with ornaments. Mahânâma cries out, "Bring my daughter here, she shall eat with me." After making some delay under the pretext that she must be adorned first, they bring her. With the words, "We will dine together with my father," she held a dish. Mahânâma takes with her a lump and puts it into his mouth; when he, however, stretches out his hand for the second lump, he is brought a letter, as previously arranged. He puts his right hand into the dish, encouraging his daughter to eat and takes the letter with his left hand and reads it : the latter, however, continues to eat, whilst he explains the message. When she finishes eating, he washes his hands and rinses his mouth. In this way the messengers come to the conclusion that she is his daughter and overlooks any distinction of caste.

c8.89

The father avoids not only eating with his illegitimate daughter but even eating the food brought by her. In the first place, he puts his hands without any scruple into the dish simultaneously with his daughter; as soon, however, as the hands of the impure have touched the food, it becomes impure for him; he stops, therefore, taking a second mouthful and lets the daughter eat alone, apparently absorbed in reading the letter. Not eating in the same table, but only eating from the same dish out of which the table companions have already eaten, the contact with the food already touched by them, is the criterion for a common caste.

c8.90

Consequently, we cannot speak of any rule relating specially to persons having a common table which excludes lower castes¹; on the other hand, there can be no doubt that prescriptions which forbade contact with food touched by the impure, and specially, with the leavings of their table, and punished transgression, existed and too often showed themselves effective.

c8.91

¹ Senart's remarks on this point (Revue des deux mondes, vol. 125, p. 328 sq.) seem to me to go too far, as they do not apply to all stages of evolution of the Indian caste.

c8.92

The eating of the leavings of a Caṇḍāla’s table was looked upon, according to the Jātakas, as such a great sin for the Brāhmaṇa that it had for its consequence exclusion from the caste.² In the Mātaṅga Jātaka it is narrated how sixteen thousand Brahmanas had to undergo rebirth, because water which had been mixed with rice which was the remnant left out of a Caṇḍāla's meal, dropped into their mouths. The immediate consequence of this pollution, for which they themselves were in no way to blame, was their exclusion from the caste. They ceased to be Brâhmaṇas (te brâhmaṇâ: ,imehi caṇḍâ-lucchiṭṭhakaṃ pîtan' ti abrâhmaṇe karimsu. IV 388) and left Benares in disgrace. This passage—so far as I have seen, the only one in the Jâtakas which speaks of a punishment prescribed by the caste and thus, to some extent, of a jurisdiction exercised by it—sounds extremely legendary; still the actual occurrence of an excommunication from the caste, or at least, of any other difficult expiation for the sin of eating impure food, will appear extremely probable if we consider the realistic account given in the Satadhamma Jâtaka (II. 82 sq.).

c8.93

² Acc. to Manu XI. 149, a Brāhmaṇa who had drunk water which had previously been drunk by a Śūdra, must drink kuśa water for three days and a Brāhmaṇa who had eaten the table leavings of a Śūdra or a woman must drink barley water for seven days (XI. 153).

c8.94

The Bodhisatta, re-born as a Caṇḍāla, undertakes a journey after providing himself with some rice as viaticum and a provision basket and comes across a youth belonging to a rich Brâhmaṇa family in the north-west who for some reason has not taken any of these things with him. After they have narrated to each other their castes—as has already been explained above—they travel together. At the time of breakfast the Bodhisatta sits down near a well, washes his hands and opens his basket while he invites the youth to eat with him. "I don't want to eat, Caṇḍāla," runs the answer. "Good" thinks the Bodhisatta and takes, that there may not remain anything in his dishes, only that much which he requires and places it on a leaf. Then he fastens his basket, places it by his side, eats and drinks. After his meal is finished, he washes his hands and feet, takes his rice and the remainder of his food and moves on with the words, "Come let us go, young man." They travel the whole day. In the evening, they come to a sheet of water and take both a bath. After finishing this, the Bodhisatta sits down at a pleasant spot, opens his basket and begins to eat without asking the young Brāhmaṇa to eat with him. The youth tired with the day's long march and feeling hungry stands by his side and looks on, reflecting, "If he gives me anything to eat, I will accept it." The other says nothing and continues to eat. The Brāhmaṇa reflects, "This Caṇḍāla eats all without saying anything to me. I will ask him for a crumb. If he gives it to me, I can throw away the outer portion which is impure and eat the rest." He carries out his intention and eats the food that remains out of the Caṇḍāla's meal. No sooner, however, did he eat this than he was seized by the thought that he had eaten the table leavings of a Caṇḍāla and had thereby done a thing which was most improper for his caste, his family, his land and felt so repentant that he vomited out the food that he had swallowed mixed with blood. "For the sake of a trifling thing I have done a most improper act," so he laments, full of grief and recites the verse:

c8.95

"It was a trifle that remained uneaten and he gave it to me against his will—to me, who am a Brāhmaṇa by caste! What I have eaten, I must throw out of myself" so he weeps and decides, sick of life which is worthless after such improper conduct, to die of starvation. He goes to the forest and as he does not allow himself to be seen by anybody, perishes helpless."

c8.96

The instances hitherto cited which may be looked upon in several respects as typical, give us a view which represents the society of that time as governed by strict traditional morality or caste-rules. However much in the eastern countries, where the authority of the Brahmanical theory was less strong, practice may have transcended these limits, a sharp distinction between the despised people and the rest of the population was made here also. In the eyes of the aristocratic Aryans, the lower castes, such as the Caṇḍālas, are impure. Their very sight causes pollution; consequently, they must be excluded from the general society and must live in a special village of their own outside of the town and earn a living by means of lower occupations. That under these circumstances, any mixture with these lower elements is sought to be prevented appears self-evident. Surely, there existed from ancient times certain usages regulating marriage among the aristocratic Aryan families which must have been built up into strict rules, as the danger of a mixture with the aboriginal tribes and the merging of themselves in these was always felt by the Aryan races, and the existence of these rules is even perceived in the Jātakas. When it is narrated in the Mātanga Jātaka that the Caṇḍāla gets the setthi's daughter as wife, this is due only to his position as Bodhisatta: "For the resolve of such a man—so it is said (IV. 376)—" always realises itself" In the course of the narrative it is expressly stated that he is not guilty of a transgression of the rules relating to the distinctions of caste (jātisambhedavītikkamam akatvā), that is, that he abstains from sexual intercourse with the setthi's daughter who stands by virtue of her caste much higher than he.

c8.97

In general and as a rule, we can suppose that the jātis of this age were endogamous; marriage within one's own játi was the rule. Everywhere in the Jātakas, we meet with the effort to keep the family pure through marriage confined to people of one’s own standing and profession and not to allow it to degenerate through mixture with lower elements. When the parents desire to marry their son, they seek a maiden of the same caste for him or give him the advice:

c8.98

“Take a girl out of a family who belongs to the same family as we” (ekaṃ samajātikakulā kumārikaṃ gaṇha. III. 422). The Brāhmaṇa agriculturist marries his son to the daughter of a Brāhmaṇa belonging to a similar family (so [brāhmaṇo] puttassa vayappattassa samānakulato kumārikaṃ ānesi. III. 162. So also IV. 22); the Brahmana parents give express instructions to the people whom they send for finding a girl for their son to bring a Brāhmaṇa girl (brāhmaṇakumārikaṃ ānetha. III. 93). Among the Brāhmaṇas, it is principally the rich and aristocratic families who wished to secure riches and aristocracy through equal marriage: the son of a good family (kulaputta) is married by the parents to the daughter of one belonging to an equal family (assa mātāpitaro samānajatiyaṃ kulato dārikaṃ ānayimsu. I. 199). To the inclinations of young people, very little or no weight was attached; we always read that the elders consult with each other without consulting their children—who, it is remarked, are grown up; to the Bodhisatta who is re-born in a village not far from Benares in a gahapati family the elders send a girl of good family from Benares (kuladhitaram ānesum II. 121) and a seṭṭhi living in asmall market-town in the province courts ¹ for the sake of his son the daughter of a seṭṭhi in Benares. (II. 225.)

c8.99

¹ Cf. further the introductory explanations in Asitābhu Jātaka (II. 229) and in Suvaṇṇamiga Jātaka (III. 182).

c8.100.1

In spite of all this it seems to me to go a little too far if we are to speak of a strict rule of endogamy; there are instances in the Jātakas in which the caste barriers are considered not insurmountable and thus the sharp lines of demarcation which we are inclined to draw by reason of the numerous instances prescribing marriage within the caste to be the rule are wiped away. If marriage within the caste was more than a universal custom, if it had been a law prescribed by the caste, then its transgression would have led to the non-recognition of children born of an illegitimate marriage. This seems, however, as a matter of fact, not always to have been the case. We have seen that the purohita recognises the son born of his union with a public woman, after he is satisfied about his identity, as his own son; a fact, which if universalised makes the influence of caste upon actual life very small for us. Are we, however, justified in making such a generalisation? It almost seems that we are, when we read the introductory explanation in Bhaddasâla Jâtaka (IV. 144 sq.), where the question whether the wife of a khattiya belonging to a low caste and the children born of such a wife are to be looked upon as of the same rank as the khattiya, is made the principal topic of discussion between Buddha and the Kosala King. The latter had—so it is narrated here—sent a messenger to Kapilavatthu for getting for him a Sâkya daughter.

c8.100.2

The Sâkya princes, very little inclined, on the one hand, to fulfil his desire,¹ and on the other hand, fearing the wrath of the king, to whom they stand in a dependent relationship, resolve, on the advice of Mahânâma, to send him his daughter, the Vâsabhakhattiyâ, who, on her mother’s side is born of a slave but had a khattiya for her father. The messengers are deceived—in the manner already mentioned—by a stratagem and bring the daughter of Mahânâma to their king who makes her his principal consort (aggamahesî) and gets a son by her. This son wants, when he grows up, to see the family of his grandfather (maternal) and takes from his mother who tries in vain to dissuade him, a letter to Kapilavatthu in which she asks her kinsmen not to notice any difference in point of birth between themselves and her son. What is feared happens, however, although things begin very well: He is taken to the audience hall and placed before his kinsmen. "This," people say to him, "my dear, is your grandfather, this your uncle." He goes round, accosting everybody with reverence, wonders why whilst he gets pain in the back through continuous bowing, he sees nobody who bows to him. But the Sâkiyas want to clear his doubts and explain to him, "The young princes, my dear, have gone to the country" and heap courtesies upon him. A few days later, he goes away in great pomp.

First 100 of 112 passages. Read on

Linked texts (12)