<p>Interestingly, in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an5.179/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 5.179</a>, it lists aristocrats before other castes (<em>vaṇṇa</em> or <em>varna</em>):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>among aristocrats, brahmins, merchants,<br>
  <em>Khattiye brāhmaṇe vesse,</em></p>
  
  <p>workers, or outcastes and scavengers —<br>
  <em>sudde caṇḍālapukkuse.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the suttas you quoted, it says "<em>the aristocrat is best of those people, who take clan as the standard</em>". The word for "clan" here is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotra" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>gotta</em> or <em>gotra</em></a>, which is different from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India" rel="nofollow noreferrer">caste</a> (which has two types of concepts - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>vanna</em> or <em>varna</em></a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81ti" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>jāti</em></a>). The caste system from the Hindu scriptures is <em>varna</em>.</p>

<p><em>Gotta</em> or <em>gotra</em> is an unbroken male lineage from a common male ancestor. Two persons from the same <em>gotta</em> or <em>gotra</em> cannot get married.</p>

<p>From a caste perspective, Hinduism takes <em>brahmana</em> to be the highest caste, followed by <em>khattiya</em> or <em>kshatriya</em>.</p>

<p>However, from a clan perspective, the suttas take the <em>khattiya</em> or <em>kshatriya</em> i.e. aristocrat, to be the best of people (<a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/jana#pali" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>jana</em></a>).</p>

<p>Perhaps the reason for this is that kings are always <em>khattiya</em> or <em>kshatriya</em>, and their lineage is always an unbroken male line from the first king of that dynasty. Since a king is the best of people in any country, and his clan (in terms of ancestral lineage) is always aristocrat, so aristocrats are presumably the best of people in a country from the perspective of clans (<em>gotta</em>).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-17T20:23:08.620Z
I chose this answer as supreme because it said: "from caste (jāti). Jati = caste. Saddhu
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-05T21:59:46.340Z
Based in DN 3, the concept of "lineage" in this answer appears correct,
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-17T16:04:26.923Z
2019-04-17T16:21:57.833Z
2019-04-17T16:21:57.833Z
ruben2020
<p>I assume it means, "Among or according to the those who take the clan as standard -- i.e. according to those who judge according to the clan in which a person is born -- the aristocrat is best."</p>

<p>That was a conventional/social belief at the time -- i.e. that there were clans or castes. And according to that maybe the aristocrat was best by definition -- the sutta says <a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/khattiya" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Khattiyo</a>, that's presumably "Kshatriyas" mentioned in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Varna (Hinduism)</a> article.</p>

<p>Compare with e.g. the Dhammapada, "It is not by birth that one is a 'Brahmin', a holy man" -- see also <a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn4/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 4</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-17T13:14:59.120Z
2019-04-17T13:14:59.120Z
ChrisW
<p>Here’s a rephrased version of that verse for better understanding.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In a society that values family lineage, an aristocrat (kshatriya -
warrior) holds the highest esteem.</p>
<p>However, a person (any human) of profound knowledge and exemplary
behavior is revered above all, both by humans and divine beings.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-01T00:11:30.820Z
2024-08-05T05:33:29.943Z
2024-08-05T05:33:29.943Z
HHH HHH
<p><a href="https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=Khattiya&amp;searchhws=yes" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Khattiya</a>... since the Buddha wasn't, against many believes and adds, a "Marxist" or "phseudo-liberalist" "only" because he didn't made an end there and made the real "Samana" to the highest of the four able to gather? Other groups (then the four, aristocrats, priests, warrior, samanas) actually have no real (ethical) standards.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-17T12:33:03.870Z
2019-04-17T12:51:08.763Z
2019-04-17T12:51:08.763Z
Samana Johann
<p>Taken in the context of a conversation between the Buddha and a Brahman in the <a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn3/en/sujato#dn3:1.23.23" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ambaṭṭhasutta (DN 3)</a>, it is quite clear how this verse is supposed to be interpreted. </p>

<p>Given the hierarchy of caste, the Buddha argues, brahmans are indeed inferior to aristocrats (i.e. rulers and nobles). He depicts brahmans as subservient to the aristocratic class, and indicates that the aristocratic class is more exclusive -- an aristocrat could become a brahman, but a brahman could never become an aristocrat. </p>

<p>Thus, this verse should be taken as an argument against brahmanical superiority. Rather -- and this is something repeated in several other places -- a mendicant has worth not on account of their birth, but their sound ethics, great wisdom, and role as a teacher (of <em>dhamma</em>). This is a standard argument against caste hierarchy, which is depicted as illogical given how brahmans are subordinated to the nobility in practice. Instead, the Pali canon places the Buddha and the Buddha alone at the top of a newly configured hierarchy (ostensibly based on ethics and wisdom alone, but sometimes on the basis of Gotama's godlike preeminence among all beings).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-23T01:27:20.903Z
what exactly did the Buddha say in DN 3? Please quote the relevant passage. Thank you
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-23T03:01:19.950Z
I'm not going to quote the entire passage, because it's a significant section of an already long conversation. It does end with the verse you are curious about, though, so my best advice would be to read the whole thing yourself.
v nu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-23T03:05:02.627Z
One specific point he makes is that, if the aristocrats banished one of their own, he would still receive a seat or water among the Brahmans. (The Buddha asks: *api nu so labhetha brāhmaṇesu āsanaṃ vā udakaṃ vā* -- and the answer is yes). The reverse would not be true -- so, indeed, aristocrats are the best within the hierarchy of caste
v nu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-23T03:10:11.480Z
I do not have the reputation yet to comment on ruben's point, but I would add that I disagree. The idea that caste refers to 'varna' and 'jati', whereas 'gotra' means clan, is a recent codification that dates to the 19th century. In the context of the Pali canon, 'gotta' more generally means lineage and the according status of one's lineage. 'Caste' is a suitable translation that does not rely on anachronism.
v nu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-23T03:14:50.333Z
Sorry to add so many comments, but I had one more thing to add. "Gotta" in this case should be translated as "caste," because it clearly refers to a *varna* in *khattiya* (sanskrit: ksatriya). *Khattiya* is not a clan in the modern sense of a *gotra.*
v nu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-23T10:13:33.153Z
@vnu Welcome to this site.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-05T22:01:45.400Z
Thank you. DN 3 certain contains the answer to my question. Regards
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-22T18:19:27.147Z
2019-10-05T21:54:53.510Z
2019-10-05T21:54:53.510Z
v nu
<p>Many suttas (SN 6.11; SN 21.11; MN 53; AN 11.10; DN 27) contain the following phase:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>‘The aristocrat is best of those people ‘khattiyo seṭṭho janetasmiṃ,</p>
  
  <p>who take clan as the standard. ye gottapaṭisārino;</p>
  
  <p>But one accomplished in knowledge and conduct vijjācaraṇasampanno,</p>
  
  <p>is best of gods and humans.’ so seṭṭho devamānuse’ti.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Why is the aristocrat best of those people who take clan as the standard? </p>

<pali-canon>
Why the aristocrat is best of people?
# Why the aristocrat is best of people?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-17)

Many suttas (SN 6.11; SN 21.11; MN 53; AN 11.10; DN 27) contain the following phase:

> ‘The aristocrat is best of those people ‘khattiyo seṭṭho janetasmiṃ,
>
> who take clan as the standard. ye gottapaṭisārino;
>
> But one accomplished in knowledge and conduct vijjācaraṇasampanno,
>
> is best of gods and humans.’ so seṭṭho devamānuse’ti.

Why is the aristocrat best of those people who take clan as the standard?

**Tags:** pali-canon


---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-04-22. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

Taken in the context of a conversation between the Buddha and a Brahman in the [Ambaṭṭhasutta (DN 3)](https://suttacentral.net/dn3/en/sujato#dn3:1.23.23), it is quite clear how this verse is supposed to be interpreted.

Given the hierarchy of caste, the Buddha argues, brahmans are indeed inferior to aristocrats (i.e. rulers and nobles). He depicts brahmans as subservient to the aristocratic class, and indicates that the aristocratic class is more exclusive -- an aristocrat could become a brahman, but a brahman could never become an aristocrat.

Thus, this verse should be taken as an argument against brahmanical superiority. Rather -- and this is something repeated in several other places -- a mendicant has worth not on account of their birth, but their sound ethics, great wisdom, and role as a teacher (of *dhamma*). This is a standard argument against caste hierarchy, which is depicted as illogical given how brahmans are subordinated to the nobility in practice. Instead, the Pali canon places the Buddha and the Buddha alone at the top of a newly configured hierarchy (ostensibly based on ethics and wisdom alone, but sometimes on the basis of Gotama's godlike preeminence among all beings).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: what exactly did the Buddha say in DN 3? Please quote the relevant passage. Thank you  
> **username_5**: I'm not going to quote the entire passage, because it's a significant section of an already long conversation. It does end with the verse you are curious about, though, so my best advice would be to read the whole thing yourself.  
> **username_5**: One specific point he makes is that, if the aristocrats banished one of their own, he would still receive a seat or water among the Brahmans. (The Buddha asks: *api nu so labhetha brāhmaṇesu āsanaṃ vā udakaṃ vā* -- and the answer is yes). The reverse would not be true -- so, indeed, aristocrats are the best within the hierarchy of caste  
> **username_5**: I do not have the reputation yet to comment on ruben's point, but I would add that I disagree. The idea that caste refers to 'varna' and 'jati', whereas 'gotra' means clan, is a recent codification that dates to the 19th century. In the context of the Pali canon, 'gotta' more generally means lineage and the according status of one's lineage. 'Caste' is a suitable translation that does not rely on anachronism.  
> **username_5**: Sorry to add so many comments, but I had one more thing to add. "Gotta" in this case should be translated as "caste," because it clearly refers to a *varna* in *khattiya* (sanskrit: ksatriya). *Khattiya* is not a clan in the modern sense of a *gotra.*  
> **username_2**: @vnu Welcome to this site.  
> **username_0**: Thank you. DN 3 certain contains the answer to my question. Regards  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-04-17. Score: 4

Interestingly, in [AN 5.179](https://suttacentral.net/an5.179/en/sujato), it lists aristocrats before other castes (*vaṇṇa* or *varna*):

> among aristocrats, brahmins, merchants,  
> *Khattiye brāhmaṇe vesse,*
>
> workers, or outcastes and scavengers —  
> *sudde caṇḍālapukkuse.*

In the suttas you quoted, it says "*the aristocrat is best of those people, who take clan as the standard*". The word for "clan" here is [*gotta* or *gotra*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotra), which is different from [caste](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India) (which has two types of concepts - [*vanna* or *varna*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)), and [*jāti*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81ti)). The caste system from the Hindu scriptures is *varna*.

*Gotta* or *gotra* is an unbroken male lineage from a common male ancestor. Two persons from the same *gotta* or *gotra* cannot get married.

From a caste perspective, Hinduism takes *brahmana* to be the highest caste, followed by *khattiya* or *kshatriya*.

However, from a clan perspective, the suttas take the *khattiya* or *kshatriya* i.e. aristocrat, to be the best of people ([*jana*](https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/jana#pali)).

Perhaps the reason for this is that kings are always *khattiya* or *kshatriya*, and their lineage is always an unbroken male line from the first king of that dynasty. Since a king is the best of people in any country, and his clan (in terms of ancestral lineage) is always aristocrat, so aristocrats are presumably the best of people in a country from the perspective of clans (*gotta*).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I chose this answer as supreme because it said: "from caste (jāti). Jati = caste. Saddhu  
> **username_0**: Based in DN 3, the concept of "lineage" in this answer appears correct,  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-04-17. Score: 2

I assume it means, "Among or according to the those who take the clan as standard -- i.e. according to those who judge according to the clan in which a person is born -- the aristocrat is best."

That was a conventional/social belief at the time -- i.e. that there were clans or castes. And according to that maybe the aristocrat was best by definition -- the sutta says [Khattiyo](https://suttacentral.net/define/khattiya), that's presumably "Kshatriyas" mentioned in the [Varna (Hinduism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)) article.

Compare with e.g. the Dhammapada, "It is not by birth that one is a 'Brahmin', a holy man" -- see also [DN 4](https://suttacentral.net/dn4/en/sujato).


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-08-01. Score: 2

Here’s a rephrased version of that verse for better understanding.

> In a society that values family lineage, an aristocrat (kshatriya -
> warrior) holds the highest esteem.
>
> However, a person (any human) of profound knowledge and exemplary
> behavior is revered above all, both by humans and divine beings.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-04-17. Score: 0

[Khattiya](https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=Khattiya&searchhws=yes)... since the Buddha wasn't, against many believes and adds, a "Marxist" or "phseudo-liberalist" "only" because he didn't made an end there and made the real "Samana" to the highest of the four able to gather? Other groups (then the four, aristocrats, priests, warrior, samanas) actually have no real (ethical) standards.


---

