Buddhism in India

The Background to Buddhism 45

were the Ambastha (Vaishya mother, Brahman father) who worked

as a ‘medical healer’; the Nishada (Shudra mother, Brahman

father) who was a ‘hunter or killer of fish’; Ugra (Shudra mother,

Kshatriya father) and the Ksattr (Kshatriya mother, Shudra father),

who were both assigned to living by ‘catching and killing animals

living in holes’ the Suta (Brahman mother, Kshatriya father) who

was a ‘charioteer or manager of horses’; the Magadha (Kshatriya

mother, Vaishya father) who was a trader; the Vaideha (Brahman

mother, Vaishya father) who was curiously said to make a living by

‘doing things for women’; Ayogava (Vaishya mother, Shudra

father; who lived by carpentry; and finally the Chandala (Brahman

mother, Shudra father). The last, who was considered the lowest of

all and became paradigmatic of untouchables for at least a mille-

nium, had no special assigned occupation (Manusmriti10: 8–26,

45). Besides these, the Manusmriti,gives another 17 castes born of

mixtures of these (including the Sopaka, born of an Ugra mother

and Ksattr father), and says that these degraded castes

should live near mounds, trees and cremation-grounds, in mountains and

in groves, recognizable and make a living by their own innate activities.

But the dwellings of the Candalas and the Sopakas should be outside

the village; they must use discarded bowls, and dogs and donkeys

should be their wealth. Their clothing should be the clothes of the dead,

and their food should be in broken dishes; their ornaments should be

made of black iron, and they should wander constantly (ibid.: 50).

While this section of the Manusmritiis considered to be quite late

(Sharma 1958: 191, gives it as about the fifth century CE), it is indica-

tive of the broad attitude of the Brahmans towards these outcastes.

Other people born of the same Brahman or Kshatriya castes were

classified as degraded castes because their father no longer fulfilled

various vows and rituals. These included such gana-sanghagroups

as the Mallas and Licchavis, as well as Dravidas and Karans

(important later as a caste of scribes and bureaucrats). Children of

degraded Kshatriyas i.e., who ‘failed to perform rituals or seek

audience with priests’ included again the Dravidas, Cholas,

Persians, Chinese, Yavanas (Greeks), Sakas, Paundrakas, Kiratas

and others (Manusmriti10: 32–41). All of this was clearly not a

description of social reality but an effort to rationalise it in terms

of a newly developing varna classification. It is interesting that the

Sutaand the Magadha, who were bards in the early epic, were now

the Brahman at the top was matched by the impurity of the
untouchable at the bottom (Dumont 1988).
At the same time, Brahmans laid the claim to Vedic Aryan origin,
took the Vedas as their sacred texts, and continued the priestly
ritualistic orientation. While claiming high status for themselves as
a social group, they began to interpret the various other classes of
society within a broad framework of varying social function. The
beginning of the process was the proclamation of the divine creation
of the varnas in the Purushsukta, considered a later interpolation
in the Rig Veda:

When they divided Purusha, in how many different portions did they

arrange him?...His mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were made

into the rajanya (Kshatriya); from his two thighs the Vaishya; from his

two feet the Sudra was born (Rig Veda 10.90.11–12).

The next step was to utilise the karma/rebirth framework to interpret
the birth of existing individuals into the various varnas on the basis
of conduct. This can be seen in the Chandogya Upanishad: ‘Those
who are of delightful conduct in this world will quickly attain a
delightful womb—a Brahman womb, a Ksatriya womb or a Vaisya
womb. But those who here are of foul conduct will quickly attain
a foul womb—a dog’s womb, a pig’s womb, or a Candala womb’
(5.10.7). This formulation indicates it took some time before the
four-varna scheme of Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra
became established as the desired formulation. The four-varna
scheme was known during the Buddha’s time; but it did not then
define the social reality.
Later the four-varna scheme was elaborated by the writers of
the dharmashastras(science of social law) beginning in the early
centuries of the Common Era, of which the most famous is the
Manusmriti. All people practicing occupations considered ‘low’,
tribal groups who were being absorbed into the varna system, as
well as people living in frontier areas not recognising Brahmanic
authority, were classified as degraded or outcaste results of union
of men and women of different varnas. The lowest were those who
resulted from relationships ‘against the grain’ (pratiloma), that is,
where the mother’s varna was higher than the father’s. The first
eight of these mixed groups, those who were supposed to make a
living by their ‘innate activities which are reviled by the twice-born’

44 Buddhism in India