SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Nandasena Ratnapala
Society's stratification system is caused by human beings. Such divisions status
regarded as high or low in status, weak or strong in power are influenced by
biological, physical. Psychological, and karmic factors pertaining to moral
acts and their consequences and laws pertaining to spiritual phenomena.
Buddhist thinking attempts to understand these influences which, coming together
causes the formulation of a particular stratification system. Primarily it is
man's ignorance which causes the division of society into different levels,
either based on ascription or achievement. The Buddhist approach is to understand
the basis of this ignorance and realize the futility of social stratification
in human society.
Buddhist thinking sometimes attempts to understand people in a society by dividing
them into strata based on the internal qualities they possess. The state of
inner development would provide according to Buddhism, a better way of grouping
people into various strata- if at all such a system is necessary. In such a
division there is logical explanation and a moral or ethical base where, as
in social stratifications based on caste, class or ethnicity one cannot find
either an ethical or a logical explanatory process.
Instead, the Buddha contributed his ideas to this interpretation of arranging
the role and the status of an individual based on inner qualities. When some
monks in the order began to exert influence, being conscious of their birth
or lineage, the Buddha condemned such an attitude. These monks believed that
the best lodging, best food etc. should go for those of noble ranks. I.e. Brahmins,
kshatriyas." in the religion I teach, the standard by which precedence
in the matter of lodging and the like is to be settled is not noble birth or
having been a Brahmin or having been wealthy before entry into the order".(J.tr.
Vol.I, 92-93).
Caste was prevalent in India from immemorial times. During the Buddha's days,,
caste was a fundamental principle in the social life of the people. A person
belongs to a caste by virtue of his birth, and under no circumstances could
this caste be changed during his lifetime. The Buddha's contribution in this
context is his acceptance of the fact that one's caste could be changed. He
put this thinking into practice by acceptance people from all castes - considered
high and low-into his community of monks.
The Buddha admitted Up li , the barber into the community of monks. Not
only was Up li belonging to one of the despised occupations of the lower
castes admitted to the order of monks, but also was recognized as an expert
on Buddhist monastic law. Sun ta, an inividual who was a scavenger was
also admitted to the Buddha's order of monks regardless of the fact that he
came from the Cand la caste-one of the lowest in the caste hierarchy,
virtually an outcast. Sun ta's experience is captured (in Psalms of the
brethren XXIX) in the following manner:
"Humble the clan wherein I took my birth and poor was I and scanty was
my lot; mean task was mine, a scavenger of flowers, one for whom no man cared,
despised, abused, my mind I humbled and I bent the head in deference to a goodly
tale of folk. And then I saw the all- enlightened come, begirt and followed
by his bhikkhu -train, great champion ent'ring Magadha's chief town, I laid
aside my baskets and my yoke, and came where I might due obeisance make, and
of his loving kindness just for me, the chief of men hated won his way, low
at his feet I bent, then standing by, I begged the master's leave to join the
race and follow him, of every creature chief then he whose tender mercy watcheth
all the world, the master pitiful and kind gave me my answer, 'come bhikkhu,'
he said thereby to me was ordination given."
Two slave girls (PuÏ and PuÏ il ) are examples from women
who were admitted to the order. According to Rhys Davids, eight and half percent
of women admitted to the order of nuns were 'base-born' he further states that
is most likely that this is just about the proportion which persons in similar
social rank bore to the rest of the population.
IÏn the society of the Buddha's time the lowest rank of the fourfold caste
system was occupied by the sudras. " A sudra, according to Manu cannot
commit an offence causing loss of his caste so degraded was he "(Ghurye,
1932, 84) . NO economic opportunities were available for one born as sudra,
free access to well and sometimes the use of the public roads were denied to
them. Religious freedom and equality before the Law does not arise in the case
of the Sudra.
The Buddha interpreted the role in a different manner from that adopted by those
who adhered to the caste system. A Brahmin occupying the highest rung in the
caste-ladder, according to the Buddha has to be called such not because of his
birth, but because of his actions. The Buddha: ignored completely and absolutely
all advantages or disadvantages arising from birth, occupation or social status
and sweeps away all barriers and disabilities arising from the arbitrary rules
of mere ceremonial or social impurity"(SBB,Vol.I, 100) .
The community of monks established by the Buddha put into practice the teachings
propagated by the teacher. During his lifetime when the Buddha was asked by
Brahmins as to what his caste was, the Buddha's reply was, " Do not ask
me for my birth."€ nada, a disciple od the Buddha once went into the
city for alms. As he desired to drink some water and come near a well, a girl
of a very low caste was drawing water from the well at this particular time.
When € nanda requested water from her, the girl said, "I belong to
Maatanga caste, Sir". € nanda replied , "I did not ask for your
birth, sister, I asked for water." Then she gave water to € nanda
(quoted by E.J. Thomas, Life of the Buddha, 242).
In a discourse with a Brahmin youth named Assalaayana, the Buddha advances a
clear-cut argument to disprove the caste theory of the Brahmins. Brahmins are
born from women who have their periods (as other women), conceive, give birth
and give suck . So how could they be superior in birth to others? In certain
districts, instead of the four-fold caste system, one finds only two 'castes'-masters
and slaves and a vice versa . So how could one accept the four-fold caste system
with unchanging caste positions as universal?.
Would a Brahmin not suffer from his evil acts such as the slaughter of beings
etc. and only men of certain castes suffer from such acts? The results of such
evil acts are similar in their effect on every human being regardless of caste
system distinction.
Do only Brahmin not suffer from his evil acts such as the slaughter of beings
etc. and only men of certain castes suffer from such acts? As all four castes
are able to develop such hearts, there is no superiority attached to Brahmins
in this context.
Would a fire lighted by a person belonging to a Brahmin caste be different from
a fire lighted by a man of another caste? If both of them had taken the same
type of firewood, would the fire differ from its colour , heat etc., distinguishing
the fire lighted by the Brahmin from that of the other?
Even among brahins, the skilled and the educated Brahmin stands above others,
and the morally superior one above even the skilled and the educated. This shows
that the value of a human being lies not in birth but in the attainment of skills,
knowledge, moral habit etc. (M.II.148-154).
In a discourse with a Brahmin youth named Ambaæ æ ha (D.I.8766),
the Buddha goes on to expose the myth of caste purity . the Brahmin youth was
so proud of his Brahmin caste that he did not think of observing the common
courtesies in talking with the Buddha. The youth did this because the Buddha
was not a Brahmin, but a kshatriya whom he considered as inferior to him in
caste status.
"And what family do you then, Ambaæ æ ha, belong to?"
the Buddha asked from the Brahmin youth.
And when the youth replied, the Buddha went on, "Yes, but if one were to
follow up your ancient name and lineage, Ambaæ æ ha, on the father's
and the mother's side , it would appear that the S kyas were once your
masters, and you are the off spring of one of their slave girls. But the S
kyan trace their line back to Okk ka the king."(D.I.114-115).
The Buddha brings historical evidence in order to confront Ambaæ æ
ha who is excessively proud of his own Brahmin ancestry. The historical evidence
was obviously known not only to Ambaæ æ ha , but also to those who
at the time listened to this conversation between the Buddha and the Brahmin
youth. If there were inaccuracies in such evidence, the prod but learned Ambaæ
æ ha could certainly have pointed it out. His silence is sufficient to
indicate that the historical facts adduced by the Buddha were known to all of
them at the time. The Brahmin youth's pride was thus broken down, and together
with the argument that the Brahmins are a super caste. The Buddha believes in
no caste superiority, a super caste. The Buddha believes in no caste superiority,
and if necessary, he would have utilized a similar argument to disprove the
fallacy of kshatriya supremacy.
Buddhist thought developed five main arguments against caste. they are the biological,
evolutionary , sociological, ethical and the "spiritual unity of mankind"
arguments. The same arguments are valid even in the case of race. Biologically,
all human beings are of one single caste. "If as brahmins affirm, all men
proceed from one individual brahma, how could a four-fold inseparable diversity
among men arise?"
Among animals there are distinctive traits. The foot of the elephant may be
different from that of the horse; that of the tiger unlike that of the deer
or hare. But one could not see such a difference from a man of one caste and
another. In the case of animals, colour, figure, odour, etc., provide further
diagnostics to separate this 'race' or 'castes' of animals. But we cannot follow
the same line and separate human beings into castes. So are the plants and trees.
They can be put into 'races' or 'casters' by virtue of their distinguishing
features in the leaves, stem , flowers, fruits, bark etc. All human beings on
the contrary, are alike in flesh, blood, bones, figure etc.
"V seæ æ ha, I will expound
To you in gradual and very truth
Division of the kind of living things
For kinds divide behold the grass and trees.
"They reason not, yet they possess the mark
after their kind, for kinds indeed divide,
Consider then the beetles, moths and ants;
They after their kinds too possess the mark,
"And so four-footed creatures, great and small
Fish and pond-feeders, water-denizens
Birds and the winged creatures, fowls of the air
"They after their kind all possess the mark;
For kinds divide, each after his kind bears
His mark. In man there is not manifold
Not in the hair or head or ears or eyes
"Not in the rump, sex organs or the breast,
not in the hands or feet, fingers or nails;
"Not in the legs or thighs, colour or voice,
is mark that forms his kind, as in all else
nothing unique in men's bodies found
the difference in men is nominal."
(Sn. VV, 3600-3611 Tr. E.M.Hare in Woven Cadences)
A Brahmin's sense of pleasure and pain does not differ from that of a human
being coming from another caste. A man or woman from the Brahmin caste sustains
life in the same way as others in different castes. They all die from the same
causes or illnesses. In the case of trees and plants as well as animals, there
are remarkable differences from one type to another; and does not find this
difference among human beings.
The variations in skin colour, hair, shape of nose or head found among groups
of human beings are negligible when compared to specific variations in various
animal and plant species. Man is thus biologically, one species.
The evolutionary argument goes on to say how caste names originated as mere
conventions. With division of occupations such a conventional grouping according
to the work that one does become necessary. According to Asvaghosa (quoted by
Jayatilleke, 1992,42), "The distinction between Brahmin, kshatriyas, vaishyas
and sudras are founded merely on the observance of diverse rites and the practice
of different professions." "One who engages in trade, comes to be
known as a merchant; one who indulges in military pursuits is known as a soldier,
and one who administers the country as a king. It was not by actions that one
performs or the job one does" (Ibid).
The four castes (it was laid down by tradition ) were created by the god. As
such, people born into a caste should perform whatever woud assigned to that
caste by the creator. The Buddhist theory, rejecting the idea of a creator god,
accepts the fact that society evolved itself from simple beginnings. The aptitude
and functions that a particular caste specialized, arose due to the conventional
practice that the caste was engaged in. people are not born in certain castes
with special aptitudes which are genetically determined.
There is no pure caste from an evolutionary point of view. No one can say at
least his or her parents and grandparents even up to seven generations had observed
caste 'purity' in their inter-marriages (D I, 92-99). : we really do not know
who we are," and as such could we speak about caste purity, which is only
a myth?
The Buddhist thinker Asvaghosa raises the following question pertaining to the
'purity' of caste. "did you say that he who is sprung from brahmin parents
is a Brahmin? Still I object that, since you must mean pure and true Brahmins,
in such case the breed of Brahmins must be at an end, since the fathers of the
parent race of brahmins are not , any of them. Free from the suspicion of having
wives who notoriously commit adultery with sudras. Now, if the real father be
a sudra, the son cannot be a Brahmin, notwithstanding the Brahminhood if the
mother" (quoted in Jayatilleke, 1992,94).
There is no bar to inter-marriage within castes. Human history records innumerable
instances of such inter-marriage. The "purity theorists" profounded
the theory that such inter-marriages would not end in disaster.
Buddhist discourses describe the evolution of society in detail. Human beings
began to live in households, and due to their lust, rights of property came
to be recognized. When such people began to enfringe on the rights of each other,
they chose men differing from the others in no wise except in virtue to restrain
the evil-doers by blame or fine or banishment. These were the first kshatriyas,
and the others chose to restrain the evil dispositions which led to the evil-doing
. and these were the Brahmins, differing from the others in no wise, except
only in virtue. Then certain others, to keep their households going, and maintaining
their wives, started occupations of various kinds, and these were the first
vaishas" (SBB. Part I, Vol.II, 106).
The third argument is based on sociological considerations. When one examines
certain societies, one finds two caste systems. In some other societies there
is no caste system at all . If the almighty God created the four castes, the
four-caste system should be available in all human societies, and as such, there
is no logic t accept the fact that the four caste system was a divine creation.
Based on the divine origin, the Brahmins consider themselves as the most superior
'born of the mouth of brahma,' but when one compares the Brahmins wit other
human beings, n differences so remarkable as to distinguish them as a super
caste are observed. Caste prejudices, discrimination and attitudes are social
in origin, having nothing to do with creation or a god. The Brahmins purposely
cultivated such prejudices an d attitudes in order to derive material advantages
for them. Rigidity of caste was maintained by them with such an ulterior purpose
in mind.
The sociological conditions existing in the society enabled the so-called high
castes, the kshatriyas and the Brahmins who possessed more wealth to command
the services of others. It is because of such wealth and power which they possessed
that they were anle to utilize the services of sudras. It was not the caste
superiority that was at work, but sheer economic power.
Purity of caste depended on the magical belief in pollution. Pollution would
ensue if a high caste person, (i.e. Brahmin) comes into contact with a low caste
sudra. A J taka story in the Buddhist tradition (J.179) shows the futility
of this claim. When possessed by the pangs of hunger, a high class Brahmin snatches
the half-eaten foof packet if a low caste Cand la had finished his meal
was used to cure the high caste Brahmins of a spell cast on them (J.479).
Pollution could not only be conceived in physical terms if one desires to examine
its role in everyday life. A low caste sudra or a high caste brahmana could,
if they so desire, get into the water, bathe and purify themselves. The same
physical purity that a brahmana gains could also be accomplished by a sudra.
Buddhist thinking dismisses this sort of "pollution" concept and does
on to say that if at all 'purity' of thought could be achieved (thoughts away
from passion, ignorance and hatred), there, one may be able to talk of internal
'purity' or 'pollution'. The Buddha in re-interpretation the role of a brahmana
introduced a new concept dismissing totally the earlier definition of a brahmana
based on 'purity' of caste. This re-interpretation contributed much to the undermining
of the 'brahmin' concept based on nothing but accident of birth. (Sn. 21-66).
"Not by matted hair, nor by family, nor by birth does one become a brahmana,
but in whom there exists both truth and righteousness, pure is he , a brahmana
is he" (Dh. P. 393).
"Because he has discarded evil, he is called brahmana" (Dh.P.368).
"I do not call him a brahmana because he is born of a womb or sprung from
a brahmana mother. He is merely a " dear addresser," if he is with
impediments. He who is free from impediments, free from clinging, him I call
a brahmana" (Dh.P. 396)/
"He who is not wrathful, but is dutiful, virtuous, not moistened with craving,
controls and bears his final body, him I call a brahmana" (Sh.P.400).
The ethical argument attacks the privileged position that the brahmins desired
to maintain in the religious sphere. Buddhist thinking arguers that anyone could
develop spiritually one's faculties and reach the highest possible point of
spiritual development. The Buddha in contrast to the Brahmin doctrine said that,
"It is they who alone are saved, and not others, " stating that spiritual
salvation was possible for men and women of all castes, irrespective of the
fact that they are born high or low.
Furthermore, the law of karma works in the same way for all without any distinction
as to one is of high or low caste. According to the law of karma, reward and
punishment are strictly in proportion to good and evil done, and one's 'birth'
or 'caste' has no relevance in this context . "Moral and spiritual development
is not a prerogative of people who are specially favoured by their berth, but
is open to all, and is within the reach of all" (Jayatilleke, 1992,50).
No one could purify oneself by eternal acts such as emerging oneself in water.
What is necessary is inward development. That was the ethical dimension to measure
human beings , adopted in Buddhist thought.
The spiritual unity of making could be understood when one looks at the lot
of human beings all over the earth. These human beings are subjected to disease,
decay and finally death. The different castes or races to which they belong
do not absolve them from these inevitable processes which is the lot of human
beings everywhere. All of them thus "desire for self-gratificatrion, personal
immortality, and for final domination over death."
In the struggle for self-gratification and happiness, all human beings stand
in the same footing. Their capacity to attain final salvation is there in everyone
of them, irrespective of the race or caste to which they belong to. the spiritual
unity of mankind is seen in this potential which exist in everyone to better
himself and reach the highest point possible. In this ,no one could distinguish
this potential varying among human beings according to caste or race.
Buddhist thought examined the concept and practice of caste and attempted to
understand it. It is nothing but a convention which, at a stage in the evolution
of society certain groups encouraged and utilized to gain advantages for them.
The divine origin of caste , with the pollution theory was introduced with this
purpose in mind. It flourished die to ignorance among people who never did understand
its real origin.
The caste ideology led to a form of discrimination in society. Equality in political
opportunity was denied to the low castes. Economic opportunity was reserved
for higher castes. Well-paid jobs and lucrative positions in society were not
made available to lower castes. Even so , social opportunity was denied as in
the case of education-a privilege made available only to high castes. So was
the freedom of worship. Religion became the prerogative of high castes. The
lower castes were forbidden to take part even in religious worship. Finally,
caste discrimination led to denial of justice before the law to lower castes.
There was one system of justice for the high castes and another one for those
who are born low. Consequently, when the law was violated, the transgression
of the same offence led to two different sorts of punishments depending on one's
position at birth (i.e. caste).
Class as such is not identified other than in a very general manner as a factor
in social stratification. Kings were regarded as powerful individuals because
political power was invested in them. They had wealth, but the wealthy class
recognized in Buddhist teachings were the merchants (Seæ æ hi).
Householders were known as Gahapathis , whereas ordinary people comprised farmers
etc.
Although these general divisions were found mentioned in Buddhist discourses,
the most important development for Buddhist thought is the meaning that the
Buddha gave to wealth (dana). One may possess great , but unless one possesses
spiritual wealth, it would be impossible to make use of and sustain already
available material wealth. Spiritual wealth consists of wisdom (prajn
) and virtues (s la). Virtues are qualities as sharing , discipline, sacrifice
etc. there is no value in wealth gained by means of violence and injustice.
In the same manner, wealth is there for making oneself happy and also to be
shared with others. Value of wealth enhances when it is divided and shared without
clinging on to it.
This theory of wealth into which an essential ethical component is added, makes
the Buddhist theory of wealth an unique development in human thought. One may
become wealthy through various means-he or she may be born in a wealthy family
or win a fortune due to past good karma. Another may collect wealth by dint
or hard and dedicated work. In contrast to this are the people who earn wealth
through unjust means.
Wealth is not for the purpose of public exhibition or ostentation. One has to
utilize it for one's own comfort and also that of others. Wealth becomes valuable
(i.e. real wealth) in the way it is utilized in order to gain happiness for
oneself as well as others. Once there was a man who died, leaving an immense
amount of wealth, misery accumulated and kept without utilizing for his own
happiness or that of others. The Buddha on this occasion stated that such wealth
if properly utilized would have made that man as well as others happy. Now,
in the case of this man, the wealth was wasted. Wealth is useful, and gains
more value when it is not hoarded in a miserly fashion or wantonly wasted but
utilized on purposes that provide happiness for oneself as well as for others
(S.I. 89).
Buddha created a path that facilitated social mobility in a society where such
movement was almost impossible, primarily because of caste and even class. The
community of monks organized had no caste or class distinction. Anyone hailing
from a rural family or from an ordinary low caste was accepted on an equal bases.
A new name replacing the old name was given, and thus , nobility was made easier.
Mobility was facilitated by the emphases on achievement. Education or gathering
of knowledge and development of discipline and cultivation of positive inner
qualities (i.e. virtues) was considered as a factor that promotes mobility.
Skilfullness is thus over and over again praised in Buddhist teachings.
Unequall distribution of wealth tales place due to various reasons. Among them.
Ignorance or lack of knowledge and wisdom is considered the prime factor. The
absence of knowledge or wisdom enables powerful and crafty forces to exploit
weaker sections of society to their advantage. It is ignorance which makes the
people idle and thus leave them bereft of necessary skills. Exploitation can
never tale place if knowledge and skills are made available to all.
Political, social, cultural, economic as well as psychological factors promote
ignorance, and thus means of exploitation of individuals or groups by other
individuals or groups. Karma committed by an individual could determine his
birth in rich or poor circumstances.
Once a Brahmin youth questioned the Buddha in this manner: "What is the
reason and the cause for the inequality among human beings , despite their being
human?" the Buddha replied: "Beings inherit their karma; and it is
karma which divides beings in terms of their inequalities."
When Buddha stated that inequalities in life are caused by karma, oen has to
accept the term karma as covering past volitional activities-present ones and
also future ones an individual would do. The past karma has caused the present
birth in a rich or poor circumstances. But once we are born, we are free to
determine our own volitional acts, and these become our new karmas although
a past karma committed by me has influenced my present status , it does not
mean that this is my lot which I cannot change. By engaging in positive karmic
activity, I could change my present and future. Karmic laws are tendencies,
and not inevitable determinants that one cannot change.
It is my ignorance that binds me to negative karmic activities. But when this
ignorance is dispelled, the volitional action that I undertake brings better
karmic results. At the same time , in addition to karma, there are the biological,
social, physical and psychological laws in life. Of these, one or more could
contribute to the inequality in combination with karmic influences . all these
laws are causal, but not deterministic.
The central teaching in Buddhism is to strive to change karma, and then, control
over the effects of kamma . for this-spiritual development would be necessary.
But in the would, if good karma could be performed by individuals and groups,
inequalities could be proportionately reduced. The dispelling of knowledge by
means of education would help us to minimize inequalities, nullifying the impact
of not only the karmic tendencies, but also other causal four laws of nature.
Dispelling of ignorance by whatever means at our command is the surest way to
free the human would from the differences caused by social stratification.