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

[L.S. Cousins]

Responding to 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 him), Fick's (clearly outdated) work notwithstanding.
Quite so.
> 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.]
This is argued and may be so, but we don't really know anything very 
solid about these historical processes. There seem to me to be many 
possibilities.
> 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.]
It is hardly surprising that Buddhist monks would direct their teaching 
towards those of a similar background to themselves.
> 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?
We have  no idea.
> 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).
This is out of context. In most cases this passage occurs precisely to 
distinguish the fate of caṇḍālas, etc. who live a good life from those 
who live a bad life. Those who live a good life go to a good 
destination. Those who live a bad life go to a bad destination. And 
similarly for those from 'high' families.
> 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.
I don't see it this way at all. All this is part of attempts to expand 
the brahmanical list of four varṇa. So either we have a list of six, as 
in the repeated line:
khattiyā brāhmaṇā vessā, suddā caṇḍālapukkusā;
or,
we have a contrast between high families (khattiya, brāhmaṇa and rājañña 
or gahapati and low families i.e. those given in the list of five you cite.

This is surely a deliberate attempt to include a wider social range than 
in the four varṇa.

> 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.
I think the issue here is poverty.
> And – getting what was coming to them.
No, this is incorrect, as I indicated above.

Lance