Caste system in India
Second urbanisation (500–200 BC)
### Second urbanisation (500–200 BC)

Knowledge of this period is supplemented by [Pali](/wiki/Pali_language "Pali language") Buddhist texts. Whereas the Brahmanical texts speak of the four\-fold *varna* system, the Buddhist texts present an alternative picture of the society, stratified along the lines of *jati*, *kula* and occupation. It is likely that the *varna* system, while being a part of the Brahmanical ideology, was not practically operative in the society. In the Buddhist texts, Brahmin and Kshatriya are described as *jatis* rather than *varnas*. They were in fact the *jatis* of high rank. The *jatis* of low rank were mentioned as *[chandala](/wiki/Chandala "Chandala")* and occupational classes like bamboo weavers, hunters, chariot\-makers and sweepers. The concept of *kulas* was broadly similar. Along with Brahmins and Kshatriyas, a class called  (literally householders, but effectively propertied classes) was also included among high *kulas*. The people of high  were engaged in occupations of high rank, *viz*., agriculture, trade, cattle\-keeping, computing, accounting and writing, and those of low  were engaged in low\-ranked occupations such as basket\-weaving and sweeping. The  were an economic class of land\-holding agriculturists, who employed *dasa\-kammakaras* (slaves and hired labourers) to work on the land. The  were the primary taxpayers of the state. This class was apparently not defined by birth, but by individual economic growth.

While there was an alignment between *kulas* and occupations at least at the high and low ends, there was no strict linkage between class/caste and occupation, especially among those in the middle range. Many occupations listed such as accounting and writing were not linked to *jatis*.
Peter Masefield, in his review of caste in India, states that anyone could in principle perform any profession. The texts state that the Brahmin took food from anyone, suggesting that strictures of commensality were as yet unknown. The *[Nikaya](/wiki/Nikaya "Nikaya")* texts also imply that endogamy was not mandated.

The contestations of the period are also evident from the texts describing dialogues of Buddha with the Brahmins. The Brahmins maintain their divinely ordained superiority and assert their right to draw service from the lower orders. Buddha responds by pointing out the basic facts of biological birth common to all men and asserts that the ability to draw service is obtained economically, not by divine right. Using the example of the northwest of the subcontinent, Buddha points out that  could become  and vice versa. This form of social mobility was endorsed by Buddha.


How does knowledge of this period relate to Buddhist texts?