[Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism?

[Artur Karp]

Dear Joanna, Lance and Dan,

What hampers this discussion is scantiness of realistic information on
the social structure in the times of the Buddha (whatever way we date
him), Fick's (clearly outdated) work notwithstanding.

Social marginalization is definitely a byproduct of deforestation and
detribalization, the two processes conditioning/accompanying the
emergence of the new political and economic order in Northern India.
[On that, sufficiently, Romila Thapar and, lately, Greg Bailey & Ian
Mabbett.]

Pali texts, to the extent that I am familiar with them, don't seem to
show any interest in either of the two. Their silence re the effects
of marginalization (not of the śudras, their social position was only
relatively marginal) isn't surprising, the real target for Buddhist
missionary activities being urbanized and urbanizing segments of the
society. [On that Schopen.]

The other factors operating behind this marked lack of interest must
have been the linguistic-cultural differences. Who were those
ex-tribals deprived in the name of progress of their land and their
sources of livelihood?  Were they Dravidians? Austro-Asiatics? What
type of matrimonial exchange they were practicing? Inheritance rules?

The texts kind of concentrate on their poverty, seemingly as the
effect of their bad karma, not on their being the victims of
civilizational violence. Showing them as inferior beings, of the
Untermensch type. A quote from Bailey & Mabbet's book (p. 42-43, a
fragment repeated nearly verbatim in five texts):

"There are degraded families: a candala family, a family of hunters,
of bamboo workers, of chariot makers and of refuse removers. A person
is born in such a family which is poor, one in which food, drink and
possessions are few, in which the lifestyle is difficult, in which
animal fodder and covering are gained with difficulty. And he is of
poor complexion, ugly, dwarf-like, frequently sick, or else he is
blind, deformed, or lame or a cripple; nor does he possess food,
drink, clothing, vehicle, garlands, scents and ointment, nor a bed, a
dwelling and a lamp plus things to light it with".

But  the text continues:
<<So kāyena duccaritaṃ carati vācāya duccaritaṃ carati manasā
duccaritaṃ carati. So kāyena duccaritaṃ caritvā vācāya duccaritaṃ
caritvā manasā duccaritaṃ  caritvā kāyassa bhedā parammaraṇā apāyaṃ
duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ nirayaṃ upapajjati.>>

Telling the listeners, that such people transgress (against the
accepted norms) - by their way of thinking, speaking and acting, and
that is why they deserve hell. (or Hina-Hell, if I may borrow your
expression, Joanna).

What I like in this fragment, is that this standard list of
occupations (caṇḍāla nesāda veṇa rathakāra pukkusa) is used so many
times as part of the argument against brahmanic haughtiness, and so -
against inequality. Comparison sounds much better and is more
effective if we bring in extreme elements. But is, otherways, nearly
empty, one part of it being well known, the other being a bunch of
stereotypes.

Empty, if not for the standard, although oblique, mention of pigs
(pig-through, sūkaradoṇi). Hunter, Bamboo-worker, or Refuse-remover
with their pigs and the lack of garlands, scents, ointments - as the
mark of their not belonging among civilized people. Ultimately
confirmed by their inability (or is it just contempt?) to conform to
widely accepted, civilized norms.

And – getting what was coming to them.

A brahman friend of mine (M.A. in Hindi Literature), when asked about
the untouchable Chamars living (in numerical majority) in his
ancestral village, admitted he knew nothing of them, except that they
had repulsive habits and no religious life whatsoever, yes some
“jantar-mantar”. I do find similar attitude in the Pali texts.

Is the list of physical marks (enumerated as characteristic for people
like those candalas, nesadas, venas and pukkusas) not in part similar
to the list of marks excluding one from being accepted into the
sangha?

Again from rainy Warsaw,

Artur