The same passage goes on to discuss indeterminate or intermediate cases. The Vinaya texts record rare cases of a man changing into a woman or the reverse. “A certain bhikkhu went to sleep in the form of a man, having beard and whiskers and so forth, but all this disappeared in the night and he woke up in the form of a woman” (Vin Pār 1). There is also an incident of spontaneous sex-change recorded in the Dhammapada Commentary:
At that time in the city of Soreyya, the son of the treasurer was going along in a carriage together with one of his good friends and a retinue of servants. They were riding to the reservoir with the intention of bathing. At the city gate they saw the elder bhikkhu Mahākaccāyana putting on his outer robe before entering the city for alms. Seeing the golden colour of the elder’s body, this thought came into the mind of the treasurer’s son, “Oh, that this elder could be my wife, or that my wife could have the golden colour of his body.” When he entertained this thought, his male organ disappeared and there appeared in its place a female organ. Feeling ashamed he leapt from the carriage and ran off. His attendants did not know what had happened and could not find him. (Dhp-a 3:9)
In the continuation of the story, she lives as a woman for several years in another town, marries and has two children. Eventually, on encountering Mahākaccāyana again, she begs his forgiveness and is transformed back into a man. His former husband seems to have taken it well, in that he suggested they continue to live together but the treasurer’s son has had enough of the home life and takes ordination as a bhikkhu under Mahākaccāyana. It was said of him that he was the father of two sons and the mother of two more, and that he loved the latter more until such time as he became an arahant and was beyond all partial affection (ibid.).
There is also mention of hermaphrodites (ubhatobyañjanaka, lit. “marked with both characteristics”). However, none of these cases violates the rule that an individual may only possess one of the two sexual faculties and not both. The hermaphrodites are said to be divided into those with predominantly male characteristics and those who are predominantly female.
The passage concludes with a discussion of the kamma leading to a male or female birth. Typically enough, it begins with the statement that of the two, the male birth is better (uttama) and the female birth lesser (hīna). But, interestingly, it is not the ethical quality of the kamma that determines gender, but the strength of it. Good (kusala, lit. “skilful”) kamma strengthens both sex faculties and bad (akusala) kamma diminishes them. However, if the kamma is strong (balava) it favours a male birth, and weak (dubbala) kamma favours a female birth (Dhs-a 2).
This, at least, is the explanation given in the Abhidhamma. The commentary to the Dhammapada gives quite a different explanation:
It is not possible that there is a woman who was not a man at some time in the past, nor a man who was not a woman. Men who commit transgressions with other men’s wives, when they die suffer in niraya for many hundreds of thousands of years and when they return to the human state it is in the form of a woman for one hundred existences.
Even the elder Ānanda during his wandering in saṃsāra was at one time born into a clan of blacksmiths and in that existence committed adultery with another man’s wife. After suffering in niraya, by the residue of his kamma he was reborn fourteen times as some man’s concubine (pādaparicārikā itthī), and only after seven more (female) rebirths was the seed of his actions exhausted.
On the other hand, women who make merit with acts of generosity and putting aside the desire for a female existence, establish the thought “by this act of merit may I obtain a male existence”, after death will be reborn as men. Likewise, a woman who is a devoted wife (patidevatā hutvā, lit. “she is a devatā for her husband”) and respects his authority obtains thereby a male existence.199
Some passages of the Saṃyutta Nikāya discuss women.200 Some reflect the social reality of ancient India, as when a woman is called “the best of possessions,”201 or when we are told that a woman may gain control over her husband through the possession of five powers (bala); beauty, wealth, relatives, sons and virtue, but that in spite of these a man can always gain control over his wife through the possession of the single power of authority (issariya) (SN 37:27 -28). When King Pasenadi of Kosala was displeased that his wife Queen Mallikā had given birth to a daughter, the Buddha told him that a woman may turn out better than a man; she may be wise and virtuous, become a dutiful wife and give birth to a son who becomes a hero (SN 3:16). There are said to be five kinds of suffering endured by women and not by men; while still young they are made to leave their own family to live with their husband’s, menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth and being required to serve a man (SN 37:3). (It may be noted that two of these are social conventions and three are biological realities). Against all this, we hear the voice of the bhikkhunī Somā addressing Māra:
What does womanhood matter?
With a mind well restrained,
Insight unfolds and all things are clearly seen (SN 5:2).
Besides the hermaphrodites mentioned above, another class of sexually intermediate persons is mentioned in the Vinaya. These are the paṇḍakas. Five kinds of male paṇḍakas are listed:
āsittapaṇḍaka—“one who satisfies his passion by taking another’s organ in his mouth and is thus sprinkled with the impure discharge.” (āsitta = “to be sprinkled with”)
usūyapaṇḍaka—“one who watches others taking their pleasure and satisfies his desire through the feeling of envy.” (usūya = “envy, jealousy”)
opakkamikapaṇḍaka—“One whose testicles (lit. “seeds’) have been removed in some way” (i.e. a eunuch, opakkamika = “by some contrivance”)
pakkhapaṇḍaka—“One who, through the power of his unskilful kamma, is a paṇḍaka during the dark half of the month, in the bright half of the month his passions are calmed.” (pakkha = “part, section”) According to the sub-commentary, “some say that the pakkhapaṇḍaka becomes a woman during the dark half of the month, and a man during the bright half.”)
napuṃsakapaṇḍaka—“One who from the moment of rebirth is not fully formed (abhāvako)” (i.e. born a eunuch, napuṃsaka = “a not-male”).
None of these paṇḍakas may be accepted for ordination as bhikkhus (Vin MVa 1:47).
There are also eleven kinds of defective females. This list is found twice in the Vinaya texts; once as a list of insults that a bhikkhu should not utter to a woman, (Vin Sd 3) and once as a list of persons who are ineligible for ordination as bhikkhunīs (Vin Cv 10:3). They are mostly women with some defect either in the genitals or in the menstrual cycle.
animitta—“she lacks the sign of the female, there is a defect in the key-hole“ (kuñcika).
nimittamatta—“the sign of the female is seen to be incomplete.”
alohita—“the flow of blood is dried up.”
dhuvalohita—“blood is ever flowing, like running water.”
dhuvacoḷa- “she is constantly wearing the (menstrual) rag, always making use of it.”
paggharanta—“her urine is always flowing.”
sikharaṇi—“the fleshy nail has gone outward” (bahinikkhantāaṇimaṃsā). This is difficult to decipher, perhaps it means an enlarged clitoris (sikharaṇī lit. means “mountain peak nail”).
itthipaṇḍakā- a woman paṇḍaka, “without the sign”.
vepurisikā—“she has a beard and whiskers; a woman like a man”.
sambhinna—“the passages for faeces and urine are mixed up.”
ubhatobyañjanā—“She has both female and male signs,” a hermaphrodite.202
A NOTE ON GENDER STATUS
Although it is strictly speaking outside the scope of this book, it is really not possible to leave the topic of gender without addressing the issue of gender status in the Pali texts. This is a vast topic and I do not propose to treat it exhaustively here but do wish to make three salient points.
First, it must always be borne in mind that ancient India was a
patriarchal society. This is clearly evident in, for example, the stories about the deva realms where among the pleasures enjoyed by male devas are huge retinues of female accharās, celestial dancing girls. It is naive and anachronistic to expect modern, western standards of gender equality to apply.
Second, there are only a very few passages found in the canon itself (as opposed to the commentaries) which a modern reader would consider misogynistic. Almost all of these occur in short suttas in the Aṅguttāra Nikāya and as they are not to be found in the parallel recensions of the Chinese Āgamas, may very well be late interpolations.203
Third, and this is of primary importance, the Buddha was unequivocal in stating that women do have the potential for full awakening (Vin Cv 10). From the Buddhist point of view, all else that may be said of men and women and their respective positions, merits and demerits is of trivial consequence.
3:1:5 CASTE
One of the most basic ways of dividing and classifying humanity in ancient India was into the four castes or vaṇṇa (lit. “colours or complexions”). To modern westerners and, as we shall see, to the Buddha, this division seems like an arbitrary social convention. To most Indians at the time, however, it seemed as natural and as fundamental as gender or ethnicity.
When speaking about caste in the Buddha’s time it is important not to be anachronistic and assume the existence of the later system, which became more rigid and more complex over the centuries.204 There were four vaṇṇas. In the order preferred in the Buddhist texts they were; the khattiya (warrior-nobles), brāhmana (in English “brahmins”; priests), vessa (merchants and farmers) and sudda (labourers). The brahmins, however, preferred a different order which put them on top. To the brahmins, who represented religious orthodoxy, the division into vaṇṇas was a natural one, ordained at the creation of the world by the sacrifice of a primordial being as recounted in the Ṛg Veda:
When they divided Puruṣa how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?
The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya (khattiya) made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced.
The Moon was gendered from his mind, and from his eye the Sun had birth;
Indra and Agni from his mouth were born, and Vāyu from his breath.
Forth from his navel came mid-air the sky was fashioned from his head,
Earth from his feet, and from his ear the regions. Thus they formed the worlds.
Seven fencing-sticks had he, thrice seven layers of fuel were prepared,
When the Gods, offering sacrifice, bound, as their victim, Puruṣa.205
In the Buddhist texts the brahmins are depicted as being very proud of their caste. A brahmin who became a bhikkhu recounts how he has been abused by his former friends:
The brahmins say this, “The brahmins are the senior caste (seṭṭho vaṇṇo), other castes are base (hīnā). The brahmins are white, other castes are dark. The brahmins are pure, not non-brahmins. The brahmins are the true sons of Brahmā, born from his mouth. They were created by Brahmā and are Brahmā’s heirs. And you, who were of the highest caste, have gone over to the base caste, the shaven head ascetics, dark and menial, kinsmen of Brahmā’s feet (DN 27).
The Buddha did not accept this view of the origin of the castes. First he ridicules it by asking how brahmins could have sprung from Brahmā’s mouth when we see brahmin women giving birth and nursing their babies like any other women, (ibid.) then he proceeds to offer an alternative explanation which makes the division into castes a practical human institution instead of a primordial or divine dispensation. The Aggañña Sutta (DN 27) describes the origins of this world system and the devolution of human beings from Ābhassara Brahmās. After the humans had reached something like our present state, various evils that had not been known before appeared among them; “stealing, reproaches, speaking falsely and beating with sticks” in the course of disputes over the allocation of the rice fields. So the people got together and decided to appoint one among them who was chosen as being “the most handsome (abhirūpataro), the most good-looking (dassanīyataro), the most pleasant natured (pāsādikataro) and the most powerful (mahesakkhataro) and appointed him as their leader. His duties would be “to make known those who ought to be made known, to banish those who ought to be banished, to admonish those who ought to be admonished and to seize those who ought to be seized.”206 In return, the community would provide him with a share of the rice and mangoes, he would not be required to do any other work and he would be held supreme among them (DN-a 27).
This individual was given the title Mahāsammata, “the Great Chosen One” because he was chosen by the people. He was also the first khattiya, so called because he was “lord of the fields” (khettānaṃ adhipati) in charge of their allocation. He was also given the title of rāja (“king”) because “he delighted them with Dhamma” (dhammena pare rañjeti) (ibid.). In the time of King Mahāsammata, there were no harsh punishments such as beatings with sticks or amputation of the hands and feet; these were introduced later by rough (kakkhaḷa) kings.207 King Mahāsammata reigned for an entire asaṅkheyya kappa (an “intermediate kappa” here probably meaning one twentieth of an unfolded kappa). This was a very long life-span even for that time when the ordinary human span was eighty thousand years (Jāt 422). He was the precursor of the Buddha in two ways. Mahāsammata was a previous rebirth of the Bodhisatta, (DN-a 27) as well as the founding ancestor of the lineage of kings from which the Sakyan rājas (and therefore Suddhodana and his son Siddhattha who became the Buddha) claimed descent (DN-a 20, Vin Mv 1:41).
We can see that in the Buddha’s account the institution of a ruling caste of warrior-nobles originated as a practical measure to deal with the social problems which began with agriculture and private property. This is emphasized when the Buddha concludes his description by saying that:
This was the ancient, original designation of the circle of khattiyas (khattiyamaṇḍala). Their birth was the same as that of other beings. They were like the others, not unlike them. It was according to nature (dhammena) not unnatural. (DN 27)
The origin of the other castes was explained in a similar naturalistic manner. The brahmins originated among those people whose reaction to the increase of evil doing was to withdraw from society:
They thought, “Evil has arisen among beings. Now theft is known, reproaches are known, false speech is known, punishment and banishing are known.” So they went to the forest and made there huts of leaves and meditated in them. With the embers and smoke of the hearth extinguished, with the mortar and pestle laid aside, they went into the villages, towns and cities to gather alms for their breakfast and supper and returned to their leaf huts to meditate. (ibid.)
Thus they were called brāhmana because they kept away (bāheti) from evil doing. They were also known as jhāyaka, “meditators”. In their origins, then, the brahmins were very much like the samaṇas of the Buddha’s time; alms mendicant, forest dwelling contemplatives. But in the course of time they departed from their true and original function. Some brahmins were unable to meditate and returned to the towns and villages, where they compiled and taught the Vedas. These were called ajjhāyaka, “non-meditators”, and although this began as the lower designation, in time people came to esteem these ajjhāyaka more. “At one time for a man to recite mantras was considered a low thing, now to say that a person holds many mantras is considered the highest birth.”208
Other persons, fond of sexual intercourse and engaging in various trades (visukammante) became known as the vessa caste. Cow herding and trade are especially mentioned as vessa occupations. Yet others took to low and cruel ways of life such as hunting and these became known as the sudda caste, those who “quickly descend into contemptible ways.”209 For all of these castes the Buddha repeats the refrain introduced at the end of the story of the Mahāsammata: “Their birth was the same as that of oth
er beings. They were like the others, not unlike them. It was according to nature (dhammena) not unnatural.” All of the four castes represented, in the Buddhist account, purely functional, occupational distinctions. The minimizing of the idea of caste as a fundamental, natural human distinction is also seen in the often repeated saying of the Buddha that “by birth one is not a Brahmin,”210 redefining the term into an ethical one which can with justice be applied to a person of any vaṇṇa. Likewise, the universality of caste is challenged by noting that among the Yonas (i.e. “Ionians” or Greeks) there are only two castes; slave and free (MN 93).
Even within the strictly north Indian context, at least two significant groups were considered outside the four vaṇṇa caste system altogether. Some were below the formally defined castes, considered beneath even the suddas; mostly this was due to following occupations considered unclean, but it is likely these folk derived from tribes of non-Aryan origin.
There are persons without hope. Here, a person is born into a lowly family (nīca kula), a caṇḍāla (“outcaste”) family, or a family of bamboo workers, or a family of hunters, or a family of tanners, or a family of refuse-cleaners. Wretched (dalidda), having little to eat, having a hard life, winning his livelihood only with difficult toil; he is ugly (dubaṇṇo, lit. “of bad colour”), with unsightly features, dwarfish, sickly; blind or crippled, lame or broken bodied. He does not get food or drink, or clothing or vehicles, adornments or ointments, nor a good house, nor a lamp for light. If he hears that such and such a khattiya nobleman is to be anointed with the khattiya’s sprinkling, it does not occur to him to ask, “When will I be anointed with the khattiya’s sprinkling?” He is a person without hope.211
The other group are those who have left the caste system by leaving ordinary lay society; the samaṇas including especially the Buddhist bhikkhus. In the Buddhist saṅgha (monastic order) any distinction of caste was ignored:
The Buddhist Cosmos Page 14