03 Duties and Privileges of Varṇas

CHAPTER III

THE DUTIES, DISABILITIES AND PRIVILEGES

OF THE VARŅAS

at sacrifit means of has certain

The duties and privileges of varṇas occupy a very prominent place in all works on Dharmaśāstra. The study ( of the Vedas), offering sacrifices and giving gifts are said to be the duties absolutely enjoined on the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya and vaiśya, 18 while each of these three varṇas has certain peculiar privileges, which are its principal means of livelihood. Teach iog Vedas, officiating at sacrifices and receiving gifts-these are the privileges of brāhmaṇas; the profession of arms and protection of the people are the peouliar privileges of kṣatriyas; agriculture, rearing cattle, trade and inoney-lending are the peculiar privileges of vaisyas. The first three viz. study, sacrifices and liberality are said to be the dharmas of all dvijas and the other actions such as teaching the Veda are said to be the vrtti or jivikū( means of livelihood ) of the dvijas. The conse quence of this bifurcation is that if the first three are not performed or are negleoted, the person concerned was deemed to incur sia, while a brāhmaṇa is not bound necessarily to earn his livelihood by all or any one of the three viz. teaching, officiating at a sacrifice or receiving gifts.818 A few words on each of these duties and privileges must be said at this stage.

Study ( of Vedas). It has been already stated (p. 38 ) that brāhmaṇa and learning had become indissolubly connected even in early Vedic periods. We see in the Satapatha Br. and in the Upaniṣads that certain kings had attained eminence as philosophers or students of brahma-vidya and then even learned brāhmaṇas came to them as pupils. For example, Yājāavalkya learnt from Janaka (Sat. Br. XI. 6. 21.5), Bālāki Gārgya from

218. द्विजातीनामभ्ययनमिज्या दानम् । ब्राह्मणस्याधिकाः प्रवचनयाजनप्रतिग्रहाः । पूर्षेषु नियमस्त । राज्ञोधिक रक्षणं सर्वभूतानाम् । वैश्यस्याधिक कृषिवणिक्पाशुपाल्पकुसीदम् । TITTA X. 1-3, 7, 50; vide also Ap. Dh, S. II. 5. 10. 5-8, Baud. Dh. S. I. 10.2-5, Vas. II. 13-19, Manu I. 88-90, X. 75-79, Yāj. I. 118-119, Vippu Dh. S. II. 10-16, Atri 13-15, Markandeya purana 28. 3-8.

219. garag et for en fantôi nha formaatti gyere मादीनि वृश्यानि । अतोऽकरणे न प्रत्यवाय: । करणे नाभ्युदयः। हरदत्त on गो. x.33;

artomeu trefa HRFANETENIA I FATTO ON T. I. 118.

1. D, 14

B106

( Ch. III Ajatasatru, king of Kasi ( Br. Up. II. 1 and Kausitaki Up. IV), Svetaketu Arunoya from Pravāhaṇa 30 Jaivali ( Chān. Up. V.3), five brāhmaṇas from Aśvapati, king of Kekaya ( Chān. V. 11). In Bṛ, Up. (IV. 2. 1) Janaka is described by Yājžavalkya as one who had studied the Vedas and Upaniṣads.881 From this it may be inferred that some ksatriyas at least spent & good deal of time in the study of religious and philosophical doctrines. The conclusion 822 that is sometimes

220. प्रधाहण जैवलि says in छान्दोग्य v. 3. 7 that पञ्चाग्निविद्या was not known to rus till be imparted it to th’ TUT AT THE UP * प्राकं त्वत्तः पुरा विधा ब्राह्मणान्गच्छति तस्मात् सर्वेषु लोकेषु क्षत्रस्यैव प्रशासनमभूविति।। vide qc. 34. VI. 2. 8. where similar words occur about the same farur.

221. एवं वृन्दारक आन्यः समधीतवेद उक्तोपनिषत्क इतो विमुध्यमानः क गमिष्य. wa Tanaraq Harira i . 3. IV. 2. 1.

222. Vide Deussen’s Das System des Vedanta !, 1883, (pp. 18-19 ) the real cherisher of thoso thoughts was originally the caste of the kpatriyas, rather than the caste of the priests. Over and over again we come across the situation that the brahmana asks the ksatriya for infor ination and Deussen refers only to six passages (Bș. Up. II, 1, VI. %, Ob. Up. V. 3 and V. 11 and Kauṣitaki Up. I, 1 and IV. 1). Vide also

Philosophy of the Upanisbads (translated by Goden, 1905, PP. 17–19). In the first place these are too few passages out of the vast Upanipad literature to found tho sweeping generalisation in which tho German savant indulges. In the second place in Br. Up. II. 1 and Kaupītaki Up. IV. there is no statement that brabmavidyd was known only to kpatriyas; on the contrary Ajātabatru expre8808 surprise tbat a brābmaga should approach a ksatriya for the expounding of brahma vidya and says that this is opposed to the natural (or usual) order of affairs. This shows that Ajatasatru was an exception and that brahmanas usually taught brahmavidya. In Kausitaki 1. 1. and Ch. Up, V. 11 all that is narrated is that Gautama Svetaketu learnt from Citra Gārgyāyadi and certain drotriyas like Aupamanyava learnt Vais. vāpara vidya from Aévapati Kaikoya. But nothing is said here about brahmavidyą being first known to kṣatriyas only. In Bṛ, Up. VI. 2 and Ch. Up. V. 11 it is no doubt stated that this Vidyā’ was not known to any brahmana till then; but this vidya’ does not mean the whole of the philosophy of brahma, but only that particular dootrine wbich bears the name of pañoāgnividya. This vidya no doubt propounds the doctrine of transmigration in a figurative and somewbat picturesque way. But that dootrine is elsewhere elaborated by brahmanas like Yājöavalkya to the brahma gas in king Janaka’s court and to. Janaka himself (vido Bṛ. Up. III. 2. 13 and IV. 4. 3-4). Nor can it be said that the doctrine of transmigration was not at all known before the Upanigads. The same views aro eohood by Sir R, G. Bhandarkar in. Verhand-lungon der VII

(Continued on next page )

Oh. III)

Study of the Veda

107

drawn by certain writers that ksatriyas or kings were the pioneers in brahmavidyā cannot be accepted as correct. The germs of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads are seen in the later hymns of the Rgveda, in the Atharvaveda and in some of the Brābmana treatises. The Upanisads are full of brāhmaṇas who independently propounded various aspects of brahma-vidya and there is no reason to suppose that the few ksatriyas referred to as masters of the vidyā were the only persons who first attained to that position. There are hardly any ancient passages to show that vaisyas devoted any portion of their time to veda study. The Kāthaka-Samhitā 243 (IX. 16) indicates that all varṇas studied the Veda since it speaks of a person not a brahmana, having studied (Vedic ) lores and yet not shining (by his learning).

As to brāhmaṇas the matter stands thus, The Nirukta (II. 4) contains four 224 verses ( which are called Vidyāsākta ), the first of which says that vidyā came to the brāhmaṇa and requested him to guard her as his treasure. The Mabābhaṣyales of Patañjali quotes as an agama (Vedic passage ) the words ‘a brāhmaṇa should study and understand without any motive (of profit) dharma, the Veda with its six subsidiary lores ( viz. phonetics etc.)’. Manu IV. 147 says ‘a brāhmaṇa should always and assiduously study the Veda alone; that (Veda study) is his highest dharma; everything else is inferior dharma’. Yāj. ( I. 198 ) observes the Creator created brāhmaṇas for the preservation of the Vedas, for the satisfaction of the

( Cotinhued from last page ) Internationalen Orientalisten Congresses zu Wien (arische Seo. pp, 108-109 ) and in Vaippa vism and Saiyigm’ p. 9 “Kṣatriyas engaged themselves in active speculation on religious matters about the time of tho Upaniṣads and are mentioned as the original possessors of the new knowledge, and the learned Doctor refors only to Ch. Up. V. 3 and V. 11. It may be stated that Hopkins (in Ethics of India’ 1924 p. 63), Barth (Religions of India p. 65) and Vedic Indox (vol. II p. 206 ) do not subscribe to these views of Doussen and Bhandarkar.

223. पोऽब्राह्मणो विद्यामनूच्य नेष रोचेत स एताश्चतुतिनरण्य परेत्य वर्भस्तम्ब 7924 TENTO raparat foarte sarete i 1700 . IX. 16.

224. The same four verses occur in Vas. Db.8.11. 8-11, three of them except. adbyopita yo’ in Viṣṇu Dh, S. 29. 9–10 and 30. 47; Manu II. 114-115 expresses the ideas of two out of them, but in differont words.

225. gruta forcutt er noget atskaits Piet I HET TOT (vol. I. p. 16 ).

108

gods and pitrs, for the safeguarding of dharma." Atri ( 25 ) con tains the same idea. Other 288 sages say that he in whose family Veda (Vedic study ) and vedi (congecration of fires for grauta rites ) are given up for three generations becomes a durbrāhmana (an unworthy or bad brāhmaṇa ). The Tai. S. (II, 1. 10. 1) prescribes a rite for a durbrāhmaṇa in whose family cessation of drinking soma occurred for generations and who himself desired to drink soma.

Teaching the Veda. It is probable that in very remote times the son was taught the Veda by his father. The story of Svetaketu Āruneya (Chāndogya V. 3. 1. and VI. 1. 1-% and Br. Up. VI. %. 1 ) shows that he learnt all the Vedas from his father and the legend in the Bṛ. Up. (V. 2. 1 ) that the gods, men and asuras learnt from their father Prajāpati points in the same direction.-27 Rg. VII. 103.5 shows that instruction was oral and consisted in the pupil repeating the words uttered by the teacher. *88 Whatever may have been the case in very remote times, from the times of the Brāhmaṇa literature and in the times of the dharmaśāstras teaching Vedic literature was almost universally in the hands of brāhmaṇas. Some ksatriya teachers or philoso phers are referred to in the Satapatha (VIII. 1. 4.10 and XI.6.2) and elsewhere, but they are generally held in low esteem. The Āp. Db. 8.248 (II. 2. 4. 25-28) lays down that the brāhmaṇa alone can be the teacher ( of a brāhmaṇa ), but in distress ( i. e. in the absence of a brāhmaṇa teacher ), a brāhmaṇa may learn from a kṣatriya or vaisya, but the only service (which as a pupil ) he should render to a ksatriya or vaiśya teacher is to go after him (and not shampooing his feet etc.) and after the brāhmaṇa finishes his study, the brahmana may go in front

226. STUTTYPET-uhy taugata rargata Fagor F rogon F# 7 g gfat i warga HT 1. 10. 5-6. This is quoted as Yama’s by A parërke pp. 286, 449. Ausanasa (chap. IV p. 624, Jiv.) has the verse, but the last pada is श्राद्धादौ न कदाचन. Vide for दुमिण the following आश्विन धूमललाममालभेत यो दुह्मिणः सोमं पिपासेत् । आश्विनौ बै

TATATTET at THTHAT I . II. 1. 10. 1; vide also 2. H. II. 1. 5.5 # garanterar gatareyourg H a PORTTI

227. FT: ASTETT: fat foar

FT HETT ETT STORT ** Sy: 1 y. 6, V, 2. 1.

228. Parapent spare pa r emat rahat faratoT I *. VII. 103. 5.

229. tror sterrd: * ai mare rotater og i se THE TITT I met a pura tal fa 1 014. . U II. 2. 4. 26–28.

Ch. III)

Teaching the Veda

109

( of:bis kṣatriya teacher), Gaut. (VII. 1-3) and Manu ( X. 1, II. 241 ) lay down the same rules. Manu ( II. 242 ) adds that a perpetual student (naisthika brabmacārl) should not stay as & pupil with a teacher who is not a brāhmana and that a brāh. maṇa may learn even from a sūdra a useful or efficacious craft (II. 238 ). The profession of teaching the Veda could not have brought much money or wealth to brāhmaṇas, since very great emphasis was laid, as we shall see later, on teaching without any prior agreement about payment. It was the privilege of a brāhmaṇa alone to officiate as a priest. Jaimini230 says that, as the ksatriya and vaisya cannot be priests (rtviks ), the battra ( a sacrifice extending over many days or years ) could be performed only by brāhmaṇas. The Kātyāyana Srauta. sutra uses a similar argument. When Visvāmitra agreed to perform a sacrifice for Trisanku who had been cursed to be a cāṇdāla, the Rāmāyaṇa says that the gods and sages would not accept the oblations. It is doubtful whether the same rigid rule prevailed in ancient Vedic days. In Rg. X. 98. r it is said that Devāpi was the purohita of Santanu and the Nirukta (II. 10) adds that Devāpi and Santanu were brothers and des. cendants of Kuru. So, according to the Nirukta at least, a ksatriya could be a purobita in Vedic times. It may be admit ted that the Rg. itself does not expressly say that they were brothers. In modern times many writers often speak of brāh. manas as the priestly caste or as priests. But this is not a very accurate statement. All brāhmapes nover were nor are priests; besides even in modern times when caste is so rigid all priests in all temples and shrines are not brāhmaṇas. Some brāhmaṇas became the family priests (purohitas) of kings, many engaged as ýtviks at solemn srauta sacrifices or at domes tic rites and ceremonies. Temple priests are comparatively a later institution and they were generally looked down upon in olden times and are regarded as inferior even in modern times.433 Manu (III. 152 ) says that a devalaka i. e. a brābmana who took

230. a urant warriti THT TET Strata VI. 6. 18; Weront front furrancals i firet. * 1. 2. 28. ___231. क्षत्रियो याजको यस्य चण्डालस्य विशेषतः । कथं सरसि भोक्तारो हविस्तस्प

#4: N 910410 59, 13–14.

232. देवार्चनपरो विमो वित्तार्थी बत्सरत्रयम् । असौ देवलको नाम हायकम्ये गहितः । देवकोशोपजीपी च नाम्ना देवलको भवेत् । अपक्तियः स विज्ञेयः सर्वकर्मस सर्वदा ॥ any quoted in rural II p. 396, the first verse being quoted by 874 Tre also pp. 460, 923.

110

[ Oh. III

remuneration to perform service before the image in a temple for three years continuously was unfit to be invited at a śrāddha or to officiate in a sacrifice for gods.

The third means of livelihood permitted to brāhmaṇas was receiving gifts from a worthy or unblemished person. Accord ing to Yama238 quoted in the Sm. C. (I. p. 179 ) pratigraha (recei. ving gifts ) from & worthy person of the three higher varṇas is superior to the acquisition of wealth by officiating as a priest or by teaching. But Manu ( X. 109-11 ) says that pratigraha from an unworthy person (or a sūdra ) is worse than the act of teaching him or officiating as a priest for him. Very elaborate rules were laid down about gifts i. e. who should receive gifts, from whon gifts may be received and on what ocoasions and what things were proper subjects of gift. The latter two matters will be discussed in detail later on. Here the rules about the per sons to whom gifts should be made and from whom they were to be accepted will be set out. It appears from the Bp. Up.(IV.1.3) that even in those ancient times there were prohibitions against receiving gifts from unworthy persons and officiating as priests for the unworthy. And the Bf, Up. ( V. 14. 5-6 ) suggests that it is only the learned who could properly accept large gifts.

In the first place, the ideal set before brāhmaṇas was one of poverty, of plain living and high thinking, of forsaking the aotive pursuit of riches and cherishing cultural preservation and advancement. Manu lays down the general rule that when not in distress a brāhmana should acquire wealth only just sufficient to maintain himself and his family, and to enable bim to perform his religious duties without causing any harm to others or by as little harm to others as possible and without unduly worrying his own body (IV, 2-3) and then Manu (IV. 7-8) says 34 that a brāhmaṇa householder may

233. प्रतियहाध्यापनयाजनानां प्रतिग्रहं श्रेष्ठतम पदन्ति । प्रतिग्रहाच्छुस्यति जप्य Chata Toyota : Th quoted io fa. I. p. 179,

234. The words ‘kusūla and ‘kumbhi’ have been variously explained by the commentators ; vide Kullūka on Manu IV.7. Accord ing to Kullūka ono wbo has corn sufficient for tbree years is called “kusūladbanya’ 48 suggested by Manu X, 7; while “kumbhidbanya’ is one who bag & storo of corn for one year. Modhatithi says that there is no restriction to corn only; one who has woalth either in corn or money to satisfy his needs for three years is kusuladhanya’; according to Govindaraja, kusūladhinya’ and kumbhidhanya aro respoctively those who have corn for 12 and 6 days. The Mit. on Yaj. 1. 128 accepte Govindaraja’s explanation.

Oh. III ]

Accepting gifts

111

either accumulate so much grain ( but not more ) as would fill a kusūla (a granary ), or a kumbha235 or he may have as much corn as would satisfy all his needs for three days or as much 88 will suffice for the day that is on and that out of these four each succeeding one was superior to each preceding one i. e. one who had no more accumulation of material goods than for the day itself (and who did not care for the morrow) was the best brāhmaṇa. Yāj. I. 128 speaks of a fifth grade viz, a brāhmaṇa should subsist by collecting the ears of corn that are left in the field after the crops are gathered or the single grains of corn so left and Manu (X. 112) says that if a brāhmaṇa cannot maintain himself he may prefer to live on the collection of fallen ears of corn or grains rather than receive gifts. This last mode is designated sta by Manu (IV.5). Manu (IV. 12, 15, 17 ) lays down that a brābmaṇa should cultivate supreme contentment and though desirous of happiness should restrain himself (in the pursuit of wealth), he should not, even when in distress, hanker after the acquisition of wealth by excessive attachment or by doing what is forbidden or by accepting gifts from any person whatever (of blemisbed character etc.) and he should give up pursuits that are opposed to ( cause obstacles in) his devotion to Vedic study. Yāj. ( I. 129 ) says the same thing in more concise language. Vyāga prescribes that a brāhmaṇa should seek to narrow down his means of livelihood and should not banker after excess of wealth; if he sets about accumulation of wealth he loses the ( glorious ) status of brāhmanya.236 The Mahābhārata says that when a brāhmana has more corn than he would require to satisfy his needs for three years, then he should offer a sacrifice with that wealth and he should not go on accumulating wealth in vain and that accumulation of vast wealth is a calamity for a brāhmaṇa.837

Gautama ( IX. 63 ), Yaj. ( I. 100 ). Viṣṇu Dh. S. ( 63. 1 ), and Laghu-Vyāsa (II. 8) say that a brāhmana should approach &

236. That this ideal of ‘kunibhidbanya’ is very ancient is shown by the use of the word kumbbīdhanya in the Mahabhapya where it is explained as follows (on Poq. 1. 3. 7, vol. I. p. 264 ) ‘कुम्भीधान्यः श्रोत्रिय उच्यते । यस्य कुभ्यामेष धान्यं स कुम्भीधाग्यः। यस्य पुनः कुम्म्या चाम्यत्र च नासो कुम्भीधान्यः . ।

237. पत्तिसोचमविच्छेने हेत धनविस्तरम् । धनलाभे प्रवृत्तस्तु माझण्यादेश हीयते। ग्यास quoted in परा. मा. I. I. P. 199 and स्मृतिच. I. p. 173.

237, raqi Tham FAT3714 Iuda Tretor of QUI FT 27 a 11 SETTFT 47, 22 ; sur mesure or four TE I STEFTIR 61, 19.

112

( Oh. III

king (or a rich man) for his yogakṣema (i. e, for his livelihood and support). Manu (IV. 33 ), Yāj. (I. 130 ), and Vas. Dh. S. (XII. 2) declare that a brāhmana when oppressed by hunger should seek for help (or money ) from a king, from his pupil or from one who is able and willing to offer & sacrifice. But & brāhmaṇa should not receive a gift from an irreligious king or other irreligious donor. This implies that if the brāhmana is not hungry and has sufficient woalth either obtained by inheritance or partition or in any other way he should not go about soeking for wealth and should not receive gifts (Manu IV. 34 ). If a brahmana cannot secure gifts from the above three, then he may do so from any other worthy dvijāti. 838 When even that is not possible and the brāhmaṇa is in difficulties he was allowed to take a gift from anybody including a sūdra ( Manu X. 102-103, Yāj. III. 41 ); but a brāhmana should not seek gifts from a śūdra for the performance of a sacrifice or for agnihotra, as thereby he becomes & cīṇdāla in another birth ( Manu XI. 24 and 42, Yāj. 1. 127). A brāhmaṇa trying to support his hungry elders ( parents etc.), his dependants ( wife, servants etc.), and about to worship gods and honour guests may accept a gift from anybody (except a patita ), but should not satisfy his own hunger with that wealth (Manu IV. 251, Vas. 14. 13, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 57. 13, Yāj. I. 216 ). Yāj., however, allowed this even for one’s own livelihood, Gaut. 239 ( 18. 24-25 ) allows a brābmaṇa to receive even from a sūdra as much as would enable him to finish marriage ceremonies on which he has embarked or to get materials for & sacrifice when he has begun it. One may take gifts from a sūdra or ugra for paying a fee to one’s guru at the end of the period of brahmacarya (Ap. Dh. S. I. 2. 7. 20-21 ). A brābmana was not to seek gifts from a king who was not of kṣatriya lineage nor from butchers, oilmen, keepers of liquor. shops and of brothels nor from courtesans ( Manu IV, 84 ), nor from a king who is avaricious and transgresses the rules of the tāstras $40 (Yāj. I. 140, Manu IV. 87). The Smrtis lay down

238. maT ma lastrettai nieruit tai gaufreni TA 17.1-2. 289. Targra foragited PH Prima 18. 24.

239. Vide Par. M. I. 1, p. 199 for quotations from Sarivarta, the Skanda purāða, the Vippu-dharmottara condomning the receipt of gifts from irreligious kipge. In Apustana 93, 94 the sages Bay to kiog Vypadarbbi’ trasfert Tist #VETETIT TAI MTW: T HE प्रलोभनम् ॥१. यस्य राज्ञस्त विषये श्रोत्रिया सीदति शुधा । तस्यापि तलषा राष्ट्रमचिरणेष

# # VII. 134.

Ob. III)

Accepting gifts

113

that it is the duty of the king to support śrotriyas ( brāhmaṇas learned in the Veda) and brāhmaṇas who are incapable of struggling for their maintenance (Gaut. X. 9-10, Yāj. III. 44, Atri 24) and that if a śrotriya perishes through hunger in the domains of a king, that country would suffer from famine and disease ( Manu VII. 134 ). Yāj. III. 44 lays down that it is the duty of a king to assign a proper means of livelihood to a brāhmaṇa in distress, having regard to the brāhmana’s conduct, descent, learning, Vedic study, tapas, the members in his family. 341 The ideal set before brāhmaṇas in the matter of pratigraha ( receiving gifts ) was that he, who though entitled to aocept a gift (on account of bis Vedic learning and tapas ) does not take it, attains to the highest worlds ( Yāj. I. 213 ); and Manu (IV. 186 ) says that though entitled to accept gifts a brahmana should not again and again resort to that method, since the spiritual power ( due to Vedic study ) that he acquires is lost by accepting gifts. Another role about gifts is laid down in many works as follows. When a donor himself goes to the place of a worthy donee and makes a gift that is the best gift, when a donor calls & donse to his place and makes a gift It is middling and when a donor gives if begged by a donee it is inferior, $42 Manu (IV. 188-191 ) prescribes that a man, who is not learned, is reduoed to ashes like fuel if he accepts & gift of gold, land, horses, cows, food, clothes, 8e8ame and ghee, that a brāhmaṇa who, being devoid of learning and tapas (regulated life), desires to accept gifts sinks ( into Hell ) as one who sits in a stone boat sinks in water; and that therefore & brahmana who is not learned should be afraid of receiving gifts.

241. Wo find tbat kings followed those diroctions from Vory ancient times. In Karlo Insori ption No. 13 (E. I. vol. VII. p. 57 ) and Nasik cavo Inscription No. 12 ( E. I. Vol. VIII P. 78) king Usavadata (Rṣabhadatta ) proclaims that he gave ono lakh of cows and 16 villages to brshmaṇas at Prabhasa and got some of them married at bir ox pongo and that he also fod every year a lakh of brābmagas. lo punorous grunts of lands and villagos tho purpose of the grants is said to be to onable the donoon to perform the five Mahayajñas, Agaihotra, Vaiśvadova, the offoring of bali and caru (vide Sarsavai plato of Buddbardja in E. I, vol. 6 p. 298 datod io Kataccburi Sanyat 361 i. e. 609-10 A. D., Damo darpar pistes in E. I. vol. XV. p. 113 datod 443-44 A. D.).

242. अभिगम्योचर्म दानमाहूयैव तु मध्यमम् । अधर्म याचमानाप सेवादानं । निक हर पराशर I.29%3; गरवा पदीयते दानं तदनन्तफलं स्मृतम् । सहरणमाइते याचिये n a n quoted by the Mit. and Apararka (p. 291) on Yxj. 1. 203. Vido my any quoted by A parārka p. 291 and Santiparva 294.18-19.

243. D. 15

114

(Ch. III To the same effeot are Yaj. (I. 200-202), Vas. Dh. 8. (VI. 32 ), Ausanaga ( Jiv. I. p. 521 which is almost the same as Manu IV. 188). Just as a brāhmaṇa who was not learned was enjoined not to accept a gift, so conversely people were asked to make gifts only to learned and worthy men. Even so early as the Sat. Br. this is emphasized as in IV. 3. 4. 15 (S. B. E, vol. 26 p. 344 ) " thus those cows of his are given to him who is fit to receive a dakṣiṇā and not to him who is unfit’. Vide III. 5.1.19 (S. B. E. vol. 26 D. 114) also, The Ap. Dh. S. (II. 6. 15. 9-10 ) prescribes one should invite for dinner in all religious acts brāhmaṇas who are pure and who have studied the Veda and one should distribute gifts at a proper time and place and on ocoasions of purificatory rites and when there is a worthy acceptor,’ 243 To the same effect are Vas, Dh. 8. III, 8 and VI. 30, Manu (III. 128, 132 and IV. 31 ), Yaj. ( I. 201), Daksa III. 26 and 31.** The smrtis say that gifts given to a brāhmaṇa who has not studied the Veda or who is avaricious and deceitful are fruitless and lead the donor to hell ( Manu IV. 192-194, Atri 152, Daksa III. 29). Manu ( XI. 1-3 ) says that nine kinds of mātaka brahmanas who are poor are the primary objeots of the gift of food and fees inside the sacrificial altar; while to others food and wealth may be given outside the altar ( babirvodi ).

An exception was made in the case of gifts made without request from the donee. What has been offered unasked may be accepted even from one who is guilty of bad actions, except from unchaste women, impotent persons and patita (outcastes or persons guilty of mahāpātakas ) Yāj. I. 215, Manu IV. 248-49, Ap. Dh. 3. I. 6. 19. 11-14 ( where two verses are quoted from a Purāṇa which are almost the same as Manu IV. 248-249 ), Viṣṇu Dh. 8. 57. 11. Many persons are mentioned in the smṛtis from whom gifts ( particularly of food) were not to be accepted (vide Manu IV. 205-224, Vas. Dh. 8. XIV. 2-11).

Another rule about gifts was that a person should prefer a learned brahmana who is his neighbour for making a gift to one who is not near; if he did not do so, he incurred sin; but there was no blame in passing over an ignorant or foolish

243. gwraigtai priprag tertaria: Firea: site: aquara unit gufor after yfir. . II. 6. 16. 9–10.

244. यदिखतम लोके पश्चास्पदथितं भवेत् । तत्तणपते देव देवालयमिता दक्ष III. 81. This is also a 44-45, HATTRUT 69.7, ruta 35. 62-63

*p 72. 89.

H

Oh. III )

Proper doness

115

brahmana who stays near in favour of a worthy but distant brāhmaṇa.245 Vide Vas, Dh. S. III. 9-10, Manu VIIL 392 ( which prescribes & fine of one māṣa for this ), Veda-Vyāsa. empti IV. 35-38, Bphaspati-smrti 60 and Laghu-Śatātapa 76-79, Gobhila-smrti II. 66-69. Devala quoted by Aparārka p. 288 and Par. M. I. part 1 p. 181 say that that brāhmaṇa is & pātra (worthy to receive a gift) who is pure in three respects ( viz. as to his parents and his guru), whose means of livelihood are slonder, who is tender-hearted and of restrained senges. Vas. Dh. S. VI. 26 and Yāj. I. 200 also define pātra similarly.

It is not to be supposed that the ideal of poverty and non acceptance of gifts except under compelling circumstances was only an ideal hardly ever acted upon at any time or in any part of the country. Even in the 20th century rural India has villages with a considerable population of brāhmaṇas where many srotriyas ( learned in the Veda) and pandits ( those who study sāstras like grammar, logio, mimansā ) are still found who are content with what little patrimony they have got, who engage in the profession of teaching the Veda and sāstras in accordance with ancient rules and who do not go about seeking gifts nor accept invitations for dinner at ørāddhas. In the Santiparva 199 brāhmaṇas are divided into two sorts, viz. those who are pravștta (i. e. engage in all sorts of activities for aoquiring wealth) and those who are nivștta and verse 40 defines these latter as those who do not resort to pratigraha (acceptance of gifts ).

Though pratigraha was a special privilege of brāhmaṇas, gifts could be made by anybody to anybody. Yāj. I, 6 says that giving to a worthy person at & proper time is the complete definition of dharma and Viśvarūpa adds that gifts could be made by anybody ; but the merit secured by making a gift depended upon the worth and caste of the donee. Gaut. (V. 18 ), 146 Manu VII. 85, Veda-Vyāsa IV. 42, Dakṣa III.

the come giving too by anybodat privilege o

245. बाह्मणातिक्रमो नास्ति मूर्खे मन्त्रविवर्जिते । ज्वलन्तमानमुरसज्य नहि भस्मनि

#7. . &. 1. 5. 98, quae IV. 37 (reads ranglarga ), afany III. 10, THURTIG II. 68-69. The Art ITIT 227.7 also prescribes a fiae for बामणातिकम ‘रिजभोज्ये समाते प्रतिषश्ममभोजयन् । हिरण्यमाषक दण्डपः पापे नास्ति

246. FAUT TE Work Frauengroshataratas I ont. V. 183; सममबाहाणे वानं विरणं पाह्मणवे। प्राधीते शतसाहनमनन्तं वेदपारगे। मह VII. 86; REFTF IV. 42 and Dakpa read Wrarate whioh roading is noted by Kulluka alao and Vedavyasa (IV. 43-47) oxplains the word, मामणमुक भाचार्य and पेपारण.116

28 say that a gift given to a brāhmaṇa ( who is only so by casto, but is not learned ), to a śrotriya (or ācārya ) and to one who has completely mastered all the Vedas ( with their subsi. diary lores ) respectively confers merit which is twice, a hun. dred thousand times or an infinite number of times more than the merit conferred by a gift to a non-brāhmana. Gautama 47 (V. 19-20 ) and Baudhāyana II. 3. 24 further make it obligatory to give outside the sacrificial altar according to one’s ability a portion of one’s wealth to a brāhmaṇa, śrotriya and veda pāraga when they seek help for giving & dakṣiṇā to their teacher ( at the end of the period of studenthood ), for their own marriage, for medicine, for their own maintenance (that day ), for & sacrifice, for their own study or journey, and when everything has been given in a Viśvajit sacrifice and that one must give oooked food to all others who beg for it ( except brāhmana, sro triya and vedapāraga). Manu ( XI. 1-3) gives praotically the Bame rule. In the Vaiśvadeva the householder was enjoined to give food to every one including even dogs and cāṇdālas, as we shall see later on ( under848 Vaiśvadova). Medhātithi on Manu IV. 5 says that when a person makes a gift through compassion it is not the dana and pratigraha spoken of by the śāstra; just 88 when a man gives instruction as to what is beneficial he does not care to see what the caste of the person to be benefitted by the advies is, so & gift made through compassion is made irrespec tive of caste; and that when non-brāhmaṇas reduced to a help legs condition take what is given by others, it cannot be said that they are assuming to themselves the livelihood by prati graha which is a peculiar means of livelihood for brāhmaṇas.869

247. fefferationeel-graftoryTATTETUFTA apreras uitrit w a TATUTE THAT A V. 19. 20; 1. 9. 8. 11. 3. 24 reads चबाह्मणश्रोत्रियवेदपारगेभ्यः before गुर्वर्थand यथाशक्ति कार्य: before पहिर्वेदि. Vido पुश V. 24 ‘पुर्वर्धमर्थी श्रुतपारहरवा रयोः सकाशादनवाप्य कामम् ।।

248. Fabricante Trata: Effer gevate T: 1 879. 9. . II. 4. 9. 6.

249.79 TTT agardai anaa:1797 If a Figurat FITTATTETI TUTI ParqataramerkT PTUAKATE TUT T दाने । तथा च शिक्षा नैवंविधे दाने देवतस्वार्थविदुषे ब्राह्मणायेत्येतदनुरुभ्यन्ते । अत पवा माझणा अपि दैन्यमापसाः परेण दत्तं ग्रहाना न ब्राह्मणवृत्ति प्रतिग्रहमाभिता भवन्ति । मेधा Ferra on #IV. 5. The words cataeo quoted here are from A. III. 96. The Par. M. (I part 1 p. 189 ) quotes a perse from the Mahabharata , पान्धवधिरा मूका प्याधिनोपहताच ये। भर्तग्यास्ते महाराज मत देया प्रतिमहा ॥.. The idea is that many is a priviloge, while charity to the poor and the disonged is due to daya (com passion).

Oh. III)

Proper donees

117

In spite of the noble ideal set before brāhmaṇas it appears that, owing to the growth of the Brāhmaṇa population and the paucity of gifts and invitations to officiate as priests, the strict rules about dāna and pratigraha had to be relaxed and in course of time it came to be said that a brāhmaṇa, whether learned or ignorant, was to be a donee and may accept gifts without any scruples. The first inroade50 was made by the rule that in rites meant for gods the character and learning of brāhmaṇas need not be deeply inquired into, but that such enquiry was proper only when they were to be invited for śrāddha and other rites for the dead, the only exceptions being that a brāhmana, who is a thief or is guilty of a mahāpātaka, or is impotent or an atheist was not to be invited even in rites for the gods ( vide Manu III. 149-150). Gradually such views as the following came to be recommended. The Skandapurāṇa si as quoted by Aparārka (p. 455 ) makes Śiva Bay to Pārvati ’the Vedic revelation is that śrāddha (food) should be given (to & brāhmaṇa ) after inquiry (into his learning and character), but straightforward action is better than sorutiny. When one offers srāddha straightforwardly without scrutiny, his pitrs are satisfied and also gods.’ The Vṛddha-Gautama smrti (chap. III pp. 512-513 and 518, Jiv.) says ‘Brāhmaṇas, whether well conducted or of bad conduct, whether vulgar or of polished intellect, should not be disrespected like fires covered with ashes. Just as fire in whatever condition it may be, is a great deity, 80 a brāhmaṇa is a great deity in whatever condition he may be. 251 “The wise should not despise brāhmaṇas, whether they be squint eyed, humpbacked, dwarfs, indigent or diseased, since they are

250. प्राह्मणान परीक्षेत क्षत्रियो दानधर्मवित् । देवे कर्मणि पिये तु न्याय्यमातुः TITTEN BERITA 90. 2. An instructive parallel may bo found in Article XXVI of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church, where by sacraments administered by a priest who is sinful do not auffor in eficacy.

251. Hrafiey have done that gratis frappe maits ir tt TOTT परम । अपरीक्ष्य त यो वधाच्याद्रमार्जवमास्थितः । तस्य तुष्यन्ति पितरो देवताश्च न संशयः quoted by भपरार्क p. 455.

___262. दुर्वत्ता वा सवत्ता वा माता पा संस्कृता । पाह्मणा नावमन्तग्या भस्माना इमामयः …… काणाः कुम्जा वामनाच दरिदा ग्याधितास्तथा । नापमाम्या द्विजाः प्रार्मम er a : # (chap. III. pp. 512, 513 ); vide range 200.88-89 ITET TI BUT TT 41 : FRANKRITET I ….. #9:18 TU FANTA hatar: arrat और यति । एवं विद्यानविद्वान्या मानणो दैवत महत् ॥

118

( Oh. III

my forms (1. e. of Krsna)’. The Anusasanaparva (152.19 )*** Bayr’a brāhmaṇa who is not learned is a god and he is a worthy object for gifts and is a great purifier; a learned brahmana is a greater god ( than an unlearned one ).’

As already said above teaching could have brought very little wealth. There was no state educational system as in modern times with stability of tenure and graded rates of salary, Nor was there any copyright Act under which a learned man could make money by writing books for students and the general public. The brāhmaṇas had no organised corporate body like the Anglioan Churoh with its hierarchy of Archbi shops, Bishops and other divines, nor was there in anoient India any practice of making wills whereby large estates came to the Church as in England ( where statutes of Mortmain bad to be passed to prevent enormous estates from going to the Church ).184 The emoluments of officiating priests and gifts given by charitably disposed persons must have been fitful and offered only a precarious means of livelihood, as they depended upon the volition of others and as the smrtis recommended that even in srāddha too many brāhmaṇas should not be invited.5$ Besides all brāhmaṇas could not bave possessed the memory, intelligence and patience required to master the Vedic Literature after intensive study for decades of years. Therefore, there is no wonder that many brāhmaṇas were compelled by the force of circumstances to pursue for their livelihood avocations other than the three pregoribed ones. From ancient times this was recognised by the dharmaśāstra works. Gaut. (VII. 6 and 7) gays that if a brābmana cannot maintain himself by means of the three peculiar modes of livelihood viz. teaching or officiating as a priest for even an unworthy person or by receiving gifts, then he should maintain himself by doing the work peculiar to a kṣatriya (i. e. by fighting and proteoting people ) and if even that is not possible then by following the avocations of a vaisya and Gaut. VII. 26 ordains that a kṣatriya may resort to the profession of the vaisya in similar circumstances. Baudhāyana

253. अविधान प्राह्मणो देवः पात्रं पावनं महत् । विज्ञान भूयस्तरो वेषः पूर्णसागर संनिभा पर्व यचप्पनिदेषु वर्तते सर्वकर्मस। सर्वथा माह्मणो मान्यो देवः विधि तत्परम् ॥ NUSTA 102. 19 and 23.

254. Vido Holdsworth’s History of English Law ( 4th ed. ) vol. III p. 87 for the origin of statutos of Mortmain from 1279 A. D. to 61 and 52 Vio, chap. 42.

255. Vido Magu III. 125-126, Gaut, 16. 7-8, Yuj. I. 228.

Oh. III)

Other means of maintenance

119

Dh. 8. (IL 2.77 ) says the same and then it adds ( II. %. 78 and 80) that Gautama says that it should not be so as the duties of a kṣatriya would be too terrific for a brāhmana and that he should pursue the avocation of a vaisya. Baudhayana (1. 1. 20) notes that the profession of arms was practised by the brāhmaṇas of the north. Vas. Dh. 8. (II. 22) lays down that persons (of the three higher yarnas) should, if they cannot maintain themselves by the peculiar avocations of their varṇa, resort to the means of livelihood prescribed for the varṇa which is immediately below their own, Manu X. 81-82, Yaj. III. 35, Narada (rnādāna 56 ), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54. 28, Saṅkba-Likhita say the same 856 tbing. It is further laid down by the same works that a person belonging to a lower varṇa should not resort to the modes of livelihood peculiar to a bigher varṇa (vide Vas. Dh. S. II. 23, Manu X. 95). The smptis further ordain that when the calamity or distress ceases, the person who has taken to the avocations of another vārṇa should perform prāyaścitta, should resume his proper avocations and abandon the wealth acquired by him by resorting to improper avocations ; vide Manu XI. 192-193; Viṣṇu Dh, S. (54. 27-28), Yaj. III. 35, Nārada ( rṇādāna 59-60). Manu (X. 96 ) prescribes that, if & person of a lower varṇa maintains himself through greed by the avocation 857 peculiar to a higher varpa, the king should confisoate the wealth and should at once banish him from the country. A classical example of the keenness with which good kings were expected to prevent persons of lower varṇas doing the actions allowed only to higher varṇas is furnished by the story of Sambūka narrated in the Rāmāyaṇa (VII. 73-76.) The Uttararāmacarita of Bhavabhūti echoes the same sentiments. A śūdra888 who engaged in japa, homa, tapas or became an ascetic or repeated ( Vedic ) mantras was to be punished (or killed) by the king and was also guilty of mortal sin. Manu ( X. 98 )‘allows a vaibya, if unable to maintain himself by the pursuits peouliar to his varṇa, to live by means of the

266. आपत्काले मातापितुमतो बाभुत्यस्यानन्तरका तिरिति कल्पः । तस्यानन्तरका इतिः क्षात्रोऽभिनिवेशा। एषमप्पजीववैश्यापजीपेत् । शालिखित quoted by अपरार्क

p. 930.

267. नकचन कुर्भात प्रामणः कर्म पालम् । पलः कर्म पा माझं पतनी हिते 41: * TIC (R ET 67 )

268. art at UTATTU 1 TITRE OF YOU लम्ज पतपस्तीर्थयात्रा प्रवज्या मन्त्रसाधनम् । देतारापन ष श्रीपतनानि पर। MTB, 19. 136-137 ( Anar. od.); vide mere 160. 36

120

( Ch. III

actions proper for a gūdra viz. Berving members of the twice born classes. It is also said by Gaut. (VIL 22-24) that a brahmana may maintain himself in any way if unable to maintain himself (by the three means specially prescribed for him), but he should not resort to the actions peculiar to a sūdra, that according to some ācāryas he may do even those actions when life itself is in danger, but that when he stoops to the aotions peculiar to sūdras for maintenance he should not mix himself up with members of that varṇa (by sitting on the same seat with them eto.) or eat articles forbidden to brāhmaṇas (such as leek and garlio) and should not be a mere monial servant. Vide Manu (IV, 4 and 6) and Narada (rṇādana 57).

According258 to all anoient authorities the special duty of the sūdra was to render service to the twice-born classes, to obtain his livelihood from them and serving a brāhmaṇa conferred grea ter happiness or benefit on the sūdra than serving a kṣatriya and serving a ksatriya conferred greater good than serving a vaisya. According to Gaut. (X. 60-61), Manu (X. 124-125 ) and others, the gūdra was to wear the old or cast-off clothes, umbrellas, sandals, mattress etc. of his patron and the leavings of food (ucchiṣta ) were to be given to him. If he beoame old and unable to do work while serving anyone of the higher Varnas he was to be fed by him whom he had formerly served (Gaut. X. 63). In course of time the position of the sūdra improved. If a sūdra 80 was unable to maintain himself and his family by serving dvijas, he was allowed to maintain himself by having recourse to crafts like carpentry or drawing or painting pictures etc. Nārada (rṇādāna 58 ) allowed him to perform the work of ksatriyas and vaisyas in times of distress. Yaj (1. 120) also says that, if unable to maintain himself by the service of dvijas, the sūdra may carry on the profession of a vaisya or may take to the various orafts. The Mababharata allowed & gudra’i who could not maintain

269. X Filet targ

TFATTO Party 4:1 3119. v. I. 1. 1.,7mdt; orefarreirit Tr FOCAT I get arengi H X. 57-59 ; 19 gola TÊN FART I sme 60. 28; vide also Vas. Dh. S. II. 20, Maou X. 121-123, Yoj. I. 120, 01. . . I. 10.5, Tape 150. 36.

260. fragrant ft Oruro rury: 1 TESTIT 8. 171; WFT Pro UT RISTE qu i strEA I. 5; HE X. 99-100.

261. पानिज्य पाशुपाल्य तथा शिल्पोपजीवनम् ।यवस्थापि विधीयते पदापतिर्न जायते शातिपर्ष 295.4; अस्प द्विजषा सशिल्पानिपाप्पथ । विक्रयः सर्पपण्याना परफर्म उदारतम् ॥ उशम quoted in the स्मतिष. I. P. 171 vide लगाम

TYW 22. 5.

Oh. III)

Position of sudras

121

himself by the service of higher varṇas to resort to the avocations of a vžibya, to rearing cattle and to orafts. Others like Laglu-Āśvalāyana (22.5), Vrddha-Hārsta ( VII. 189, 192 ) allowed agriculture to the sūdra. The Kālikāpurāṇa quoted in the Gr. R. (p. 479 ) allowed the sūdra to sell all commodities except honey, skins, lāksā (lac), wines and flesh, while Bṭhat-Parāśara (p. 101 ) prohibited the sūdra from selling wine and flesh. Devala quoted in the Mit. (on Yāj. I. 120 ) prescribes that the sūdra should serve the twice-born and may engage in agriculture, rearing cattle, carrying loads, sale of commodities, drawing and painting, dancing, singing and playing on musical instruments like the flute, lute, drums and tabors. 268 The foregoing will show that the sūdra gradually rose in social status so far as occupation was concerned and could follow all occupations except those specially reserved for the brāhmana, 80 much so that sūdras became even kings and Manu (IV. 61 ) bad expressly to enjoin upon brābmanas not to dwell in the kingdom of a sūdra. 263 The smṛtis however did not like that wealth should be accumulated in the hands of the śūdra (though they were quite willing that kṣatriyas and vaisyas should command all wealth ). Gaut. (X. 64-65 ) says that the sūdra’s accumulation of wealth should be for the support and benefit of the other varṇas. Manu (X. 129) says that a śūdra, even though able to accumulate wealth, should not do so, as ( on account of his pride of wealth and his ignorance ) he may cause obstructions and trouble to brāhmaṇas. Sūdras were divided into numerous subcastes. But there were two main divisions. One was aniravasita sudras (such as carpenters and blacksmiths) and the other niravasita śūdras (like cāṇdālas ); vide note 200 above. Another division of sūdras was into those who were bhojyānna (i. e. food prepared by whom could be partaken by brāhmaṇas ) and abhojyānna. In the first were included one’s

262. Juratate este prealautai amor e TRT पण्यव्यवहार चित्रकर्म-वृत्य-गीत-घेणु-वीणामुरजमुदङ्गवादनादीनि । देवल in मिता. on 71. I. 120.

263. Compare 90. y. &. I. 11. 32, 18 (

afterta

) with HE IV. 61. This dictum of Manu must have been pronounced at a time when sudra kings were rare; otherwise it would bave no meaning and brābmagas would have been compelled to leave India. So it follows that Manu did not hold the view propounded in certain Pura pas that after the Nandas there would he no ksatriya kings and only sudras will be kings.

8. D. 16

122

slave, one’s cowherd, barber, family friend and one who shared with one the crop reared on one’s land (vide Yāj. I. 166). It is worthy of note that even the Mit. adds the potter to the above list. All the other sūdras were such that a brāhmana could not take his food. A third and well-known division was into sacchūdra ( well-conducted) and asac-chūdra. The former class included those śūdras who followed good occupations or trade, served dvijas and had given up meat and drinking or selling liquor. 204 The Sūdrakamalakara (p. 60.) says that agat-sūdras do not incur sin even if they partake of meat and liquor, provided they do not eat forbidden meat and that there is no lapse if one comes in contact with a sūdra that drinks liquor.

A few words may now be said about brāhmaṇas being allowed to follow the occupations of kṣatriyas and vaisyas. From very ancient times brāhmaṇas appear to have followed the profession of arins, Pān (V. 2. 71) teaches 285 the formation of the word ‘brāhmaṇaka’ as applied to a country, which means “in which Brāhmaṇas follow the profession of arms. Kaut.866 (IX.2) quotes the view of the acāryas that when there are armies composed of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaisyas and sūdras each preceding one is better for enlistment than each subsequent, but Kaut himself is against this and adds that the enemy may win over the army of brābmanas by prostration before them. Apastamba was against the idea of brāhmaṇas following the profession of arms. He says (I. 10. 29. 7)267 ’ a brāhmaṇa should not catch hold of a weapon oven for examining it (much

264. न सुरां सन्धयेद्यस्तु आपणेषु गृहेषु च । न विक्रीणाति च तथा सपनो हि स FETTI HECTETTOY ( section ) chap. 44. 32.

265. Pan. V. 2. 71 is not commented on by Patañjali and the Kasika explains the sutra as above. But it is clear that Patnājali know a country called Brahmanaka as elsewhere he says ( vol. II. p. 298 on Pag. IV 2. 104, Vartika 30, arra ATEMEH Palla

rura:’).

266. बामणक्षत्रियवैश्यशूद्धसैन्यानां तेज:माधान्यात् पूर्व पूर्व श्रेयः संनाहयितुमि त्याचार्याः । नेति कौटिल्यः । मणिपातेन माझपल परोऽभिहारयेत् । कौटिल्य Ix. 2.

267. afterreta ou ru tratar i arty, . I. 10. 29. 7; sur ITU

muita tarqatai . VII. 25; s ygefa I Tento s opraf TT moniat GT i materat fraait ren wordent # . E. II. 2. 80 ; * coloriage Wartorg if III. 24.

Ch. III )

Brāhmanas as soldiers

123

less for attacking others with it)’. Gaut. (VII. 6) allowed & brāhmaṇa to follow ksatriya’s profession in case of distress (āpad ) and adds ( in VII. 25 ) that even a brāhmaṇa while still following the peculiar avocation of a brābmana may wield weapons when his life is in danger. The Baud. Dh. S. (II. 2, 80) quotes a verse’ for saying cows and brāhmaṇas, for preventing the mixture of varṇas, the brābmana and vaisya may take to arms from their concern for dharma,’ The Vas. Dh. S.(111. 24) allows a brāhmana to wield & weapon for protecting himself and for pre venting confusion or mingling of vernas. Manu (VIII. 348-349) allows all dvijūtis to resort to weapons where the observance of dharma (or of the duties of varṇas and āśramas ) is obstructed (by violent men), when there is a disturbance (due to invasion etc. ) involving the twico-born classes, in evil times for protect ing one’s self, when there is an attack for carrying away cows or other wealth ( given as fees) and in order to protect women and brāhmaṇas and he incurs no sin if he kills ( for these pur poses). Among the heroes of the Mahābhārata there are great warriors and commanders like Drona, his son Aśvatthaman, Krpa (the maternal uncle of Ağvatthāman) who were brāhmaṇas, The Mahābhārata says that a brāhmaṇa slıould fight at the order of the king.288 The Sāntiparva (78.18 ) calls upon persons of all varṇas to wield arms when the rules for holding society to gether are broken and when dasyus (robbers or low persons ) cause confusion. From ancient times we find brāhmaṇas as commanders and founders of royal dynasties. The famous Senāpali Puṣyamitra belonged to the Sunga gotra and wrested an empire from the last of the Mauryas about 184 B.O. His line was followed by the Kāṇvāyanas, the founder being minister Vāsudeva, a brābmana, who killed the last Sunga about 72 B. O. We learn from the Talagunda pillar inscription of Kakusthavarman ( E. I. Vol. VIII. p. 24 ) that the founder of the Kadambas, Mayūraśarman, was a brāhmaṇa. In Maratha history there were the Peshwas and other brāhmana warriors and commanders.

Though it is said that a brāhmaṇa in distress may follow the occupation of a vaisya, there were several restrictions imposed upon brāhmaṇas following the occupations of money. lending, agriculture, trade, and the rearing of cattle, which were proscribed as the privileged occupations of vaisyas.

268. राशो नियोगा योग्य प्रामणेन विशेषतः । पर्तता क्षत्रधर्मेण वं धर्मविदी fragileau 65.42.

124

As to money-lending, Gaut.269 (X. 5-6) allowed & brābinana to maintain himself and his family by agriculture, sale of commodities and money-lending only if he did not engage in these personally, but through the agency of others. Vas. Dh. S. (II. 40 ) enjoins upon brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas not to lend money like usurers and quotes two verses which define usury and say that a userer is a greater singer than even one who is guilty of brāhmana-murder, Manu (X. 117) also forbids usury to brābinanas and kṣatriyas, but allows them to charge a low rate of interest to persons engaged in low actions. Nārada (rṇādāna 111 ) forbids usury to brābmanas even in the direst calamnities. Ap. Dh, S. (I. 9. 27. 10) prescribes a prāyaścitta 370 for a brāhmana lending money at usurious rates. Bphaspati as quotedPri in the Gr. R. has a rather amusing Verse ‘sages have enumerated numerous means of livelihood, but out of all of them money-lending is pre-eminent. There is loss in agriculture due to draught, to the fear of the exactions of the king and the ravages of rats and others, but there is no such loss in money-lending. It appears that this is only a general or satirical statement and does not recommend money lending to brāhmaṇas.

The obvious reasons and motives underlying these restric tions on brāhmaṇas were to make them live simple lives, to insist on the necessity and high value to themselves and to society of studying, preserving and augmenting the ancient literature and oulture, to emphasize the fact that a highly spiritual life should not be given up for a mere secular life, to prevent the coarsening and hardening of the heart and emotions in a relentless and continuous pursuit of wealth or martial glory.

Agriculture- In the dharmaśāstra works there is a great conflict of views about agriculture as an ocoupation for

269. # 9757 frei . X. 5-6; TITUCut a furt न वद्याताम् । अथाप्युवाहरन्ति । समधे धान्पमुद्धृत्य महा या प्रयच्छति । स च वाधुषिको भाम ब्रह्मवादिषु गहितः । ब्रह्माहत्यां च वृद्धि च तुलया समतोलयत् । अतिष्ठत् भ्रूणहा कोट्या area: 728241 ITE II. 40. Vide . #. #. I. 5. 93-94 for these two verses ; appeal to IE TOTEU #arja! Ta ( Furta v. 111)

__270. अनार्या शयने विभवू दवदवावं कषायपा। अमाह्मण इस बन्दित्वा वृणेष्वासीत 989913. J. . I. 9. 27. 10.

271. यहयो पर्तनोपाया ऋषिभिः परिकीर्तिताः । सर्वेषामपि पैसषा कुसीवमधिक विदुः। अनावृष्टया राजभयाद् मूषिकायैरुपद्वैः । कृण्यादिके भवामिः कुसीदे सा न frua il TERITE in . 1. p. 488

Oh. III)

Agriculture and brāhmaṇas

125

brāhmaṇas. The Vedic Literature does not condeinn agriculture in the case of brāhmaṇas. The gambler’s song 273 (Rg. X. 34 ) winds up with the exhortation ‘do not play with dice, do engage in agriculture, thinking highly of my words (or of wealth ), do find joy in wealth, in that ( in agriculture) there are cows, there is your wife &c.’ There are frequent references in Vedic Litera ture to fields, ploughshares and tilling the soil ( vide Rg. X. 101,3

=Tai.S.IV.2.5.5, Vāj. S. XII. 67, Rg. I. 110.5, I. 176.2, X. 117. 7). Baudhāyana 273 says (1.5. 101). The study of the Veda tends to the destruction of agriculture and ( devotion to) agriculture tends to the loss of the study ) of the Veda. One who has the capacity (to look after both ) may rogort to both, but he wbo is unable (to look after both) should give up agriculture’. Baudhāyana further says (II. 2. 82-83) ‘& brābnana should engage in agriculture before his morning meal and he should only coax again and again his oxen whose noses bave pot been pierced and whose testicles are not reinoved and without prodd. ing them with a pointed awl’. The Vas. Dh. S. ( II. 32-34 ) has a similar sūtra, adds that in summer he shall water his beasts (in the morning ) and quotes Vāj. S. XII. 71. Manu ( X. 83-84 ) says ‘a brāhmaṇa or a ksatriya compelled to follow the avocations of a vaiśya (owing to difficulty of maintenance otherwise ) should by all means avoid agriculture wbich is full of injury to sentient beings and dependent on others (labourers, oxen &c.). Some regard agriculture as a good mode of liveli hood but it is condemned by the good, (as) wood having an iron tip (i, e, the plough) strikes the earth and (the insects and germs) imbedded in the earth.’ Manu IV. 5 designated agricul ture by the word ‘pramta’ (pre-eminent in loss of life). Hārita quoted 374 in Gr. R. p. 429 declares ’the ploughshare (i. e. agrioulture ) carries with it destruction of life, therefore it is not for brāhmaṇas; but if he were to follow it (agriculture ) in distress he should pursue it only till bis object (of tiding over

278. haften: FTTHUR TAFT DE #TATA: 1 79 7* Per TTTTTÀ A f darta:11 R. X. 34. 13.

279. घेदः कृषिविनाशाय कृषिर्षेदविनाशिनी। शक्तिमानुभयं कुर्यावशक्तस्तु कृर्षि Fusta 1. 4. I. 5. 101; 97 PaTiṣtaff FurT 1 3tFanar FECHY HEUTET AT Trayeqy 11. 47. . II. 2. 82–83.

280. PERO O matagpo a maua I 3194rureur griqurbati a in . t. p. 429.128

f Oh. Itt

distress) is accomplished’. Parāśara 87$ (I1. 2-4, 7, 14) allows a brābmapa to engage in agriculture, but lays down certain restrictions. The proper number of oxen to be yoked to the plough is eight, six being middling, four are yoked only by the cruel and two by those who sacrifice the lives of their oxen; he should not yoke an ox that is hungry, thirsty or tired, he should make the oxen work only for half the day and then bathe them

in water, he should offer the five mahāyajñas and other sacrifices with corn raised by himself engaging in agriculture, the sin of ploughing the earth for a day with an iron-tipped ploughshare is equal to that incurred by a fisherman fishing for a year; he should give of the corn to the king, offer it to gods and go to brāhmaṇas and then he may not be smeared with sin’. Harita quoted by Aparārka (p. 937) has a long prose passage on the treat ment to be given to oxen by brāhmaṇas and also Vrddha-Gau tama (Jiy. part 2 p. 571). Vṭddha-Hārita 276 (VII. 179 and 182 ) says that agrioulture is common to all verṇas and agriculture, rearing cattle and service are not forbidden to any. The above discussion shows how agriculture was viewed at different times and by different writers from different points of view.

Sale and barter-We have seen above that & brāhmana is allowed to maintain himself by trade in distress or difficulties (ūpad). But there were very great restrictions as to what things could be sold by a brāhmaṇa. According to Gaut. (VII. 8-14) & brāhmaṇa should not engage in the sale of fragrant things (like sandal-wood ), fluids (like oils, ghee &c.), cooked food, Besame, hemp (and hempen articles like bags ), kṣauma (linen), deer-skin, dyed and cleanly washed clothes, milk and its products (like curds &c.), roots, flowers, fruits, herbs ( used as drugs ), honey, meat, grass, water, deleterious drugs (like opium, poison), animals ( for being killed), men (as elaves), barren cows, heifers and cows liable to abortion. He adds (Gautama VII. 15 ) that according to some a brāhmaṇs could not sell land, rice, yava, goats and sheep, horses, bulls, freshly delivered cows and

275. alacat Fax: Forenirot tria i ERET E VETA ARTA स्मृतम् । चतुर्गवं उशंसानो द्विगर्व षघातिनाम् ॥ पराशर II. 2; ब्राह्मणस्त कृर्षि कत्या महादोषमयामुयात् । राज्ञे दरवा त षड्भागं देवानां चैकविंशकम् । विप्राणां त्रिंशकं भागं कृषि कर्ता न लिप्यते ॥ पराशर II. 12-13. This last is ascribed to बृहस्पति by अपरार्क p. 936, v. T. p. 431. The verse sem pret occurs in Atri 222-223, Apastamba (in verse ) I. 22-23, Hörsta in Gș. R. p. 431.

276. rentetat Htarat w …… grat quared Front furaren erre VII, 179, 182.

Ch. III]

Sale and barter for brāhmaṇas

127

oxen that are yoked to carts. These restrictions did not apply to a kṣatriya engaging in trade. Āp. Dh. 8. 1. 7. 20. 12-13877 has a similar list but adds among forbidden articles of sale’ weapons, sticky things (śleṣma, like lac), young stalks ( tokma ), fer mented liquids (kiṇva), the expectation of merit (sukrtāsā ) and says that among corns sesame and rice are on no account to be sold. Baud. Dh. S. II. 1. 77-78 condemns the sale of Besame and rice by saying that he who sells them sells respec tively his pitīs (dead ancestors ) and his prānas. This arose probably from the close connection of sesame with śrāddha and tarpana. Vas. Dh. S. ( 11. 24-29) gives a similar list and adds a prohibition against the sale of stones, salt, silk, iron, tin, lead, all wild animals, all tame animals with uncloven hoofs and those that have a mane, birds and animals having fangs. It quotes a verse at II. 27 ( which is the same as Manu X. 92) ‘a brābmana immediately becomes a sinner by the sale of meat, lac and salt and be becomes & sūdra by selling milk for three days’. About sesamo, Baud. Dh. 8.478 ( II. 1. 76), Manu ( X. 91 ) and Vas. Dh. 8. (II. 30 ) present the same verse. If a man deals with sesame in any way other than eating them or using them for bathing (i. e. applying sesamum oil to the body before a bath ) and making a gift of them, becomes a worm and sinks together with his pitps in the ordure of a dog’. But it appears that Vasiṣtha 278 (II. 31), Manu (X. 90) allow the sale of sesame if a man engages in agriculture and himself produces them (but sale must be only for purposes of religious duties, according to Manu ). Yāj. (III. 39) and Nārada ( rṇādāna 66 ) say that Besame may be bartered for an equal measure of other corn to raise means for religious purposes and for medioine also socording to Nārada). Manu (X. 86-89), Yaj. (III. 36-38), Nārada (rnādāna 61-63 ) give long lists of articles that Brāhmaṇas were forbidden to sell and that inolude a few more than those specified above. For example, Manu forbids the sale of bee’s wax, kusa, indigo, while Yāj. adds soma, mud, blankets made of goat wool, hair (of camari deer ) and oilcakes ( pinyāka ) to things forbidden to

277. strią smag ta qograr quantasy FTTI ROTTTT FETTET, TUTTA चर्म गवा वा लेण्मोदके तोक्मकिण्वे पिप्पलीमरीचे धान्यं मासमायुधं सुकृताश च । तिल HUGMTERET EFF*** Pastato a farofrera i 3114. 9. . 1. 7. 20. 11-13.

278. भोजनाम्यानाहानात् यदन्यत्कुरुते तिलैः कृमिसूतः श्वविष्ठायो पितृभिः सह * II RE X. 91 ; # quoted in Fraz. I. 180 has a similar verso.

279. H ar FUT Tea Paar feite 1 af & II, 31.

128

be sold. Saṅkha-Likhita,280 Udyoga-parva 38. 5, śāntiparva 78. 4-6, Harita (as quoted by Aparārka p. 1113) contain long lists of things the sale of which was forbidden to brāhmaṇas. Apart from these negative rules, there are some that are positive and prescribe what may be sold. For example, the Baud. Dh. S.81 prescribes the sale of grass and wood in their natural state and quotes a verse Oh! Brahmana, these are the articles you may sell, viz., domestic animals that have only one row of teeth, minerals except salt and threads (i. e. cloth ) that are not coloured with some dye.’ Nārada 288 (rṇādāna 64-65) states’ a brāhinana may sell dried wood and grass, except fragrant articles, eraka (a kind of grass), rattan, cotton, roots, kusa grass; cereals that get split up of their own accord, badara and inguda among fruits, cords and threads of cotton provided they are not coloured’. Saṅkha-Likhita also (as quoted by Aparārka p. 933) have the same rules as Nārada and further enjoin upon the brāhmaṇa not to higgle for the price but to have a fixed price.

___Yaj. (III. 40) says that the sale of lac, salt and meat lead to a brāhmaṇa’s fall (i. e, he loses the right to perform the duties of dvijātis) and the sale of milk, ourds and liquor reduces him to the status of a low class (i. e. of a sūdra). Manu (XI. 62). Viṣṇu Dh. S. (37.14)and Yaj. (III. 234) include the sale of for bidden articles among upapātakas and Yāj. (III. 265) prescribes cāndrāyana and other prāyaścittas for it. Hārita ( quoted by Aparārka p. 1113 and Mit. on Yaj. III. 265 ) prescribes various prāyaścittas for the sale of various forbidden articles. Laghu Śatātapa prescribes ( v.87 ) cāndrāyana for the sale of honey, meat, wine, soins, lac, salt.283 Nārada (rṇādāna 67 ) calls upon

280, न विक्रीणीयादविक्रेयाणि । तिलौलदधिक्षौदलषणलाक्षामद्यमांसकृताणत्री पुरुषहस्त्यश्ववृषभगन्धरसकृष्णाजिनोमोदकनीलीविक्रयात्सद्यः पतति ब्राह्मणः ॥ शडा लिखित quoted by अपरार्क p. 1113 and स्मृतिच. I. 180; आधिक्रेयं लवर्ण पक्कम दधिक्षीर मधु तैलं धृतं च। तिला मांसफलमूलानि शाकं रक्तं वासः सर्वगन्धा गुडाश्च ॥ उद्योगपर्व 38.5.

281. तृणकाष्ठमविकृतं विक्रेयम् । अथाप्युदाहरन्ति । पशवश्चैकतोदन्ता अश्मा च लषणोद्धृतः । एतद् ब्राह्मण ते पण्यं तन्तुश्चारजनीकृतः ॥ बो. ध. सू. II. 1. 81-823; snle of iniperals would be opposed to Vasiṣtha II. 24.

282. ब्राह्मणस्य तु विक्रेयं शुष्क दार तृणानि च । गन्धद्रव्यैरकावे तूलस्तूली कृताहते (?)। स्वयं शीर्ण च विदलं फलानां बरेङ्गदे । रज्जुः कासिकं सूत्रं तश्चेदविकृतं भवेत् । नारद (कणादान 64-55), शुष्ककाष्ठनदरेगावबिल्वरज्जु कासिकसूत्रैरविकतै ग्यमा हरेत् । शङ्कलिखित quoted by अपरार्क p. 934 ; सकृदेवोक्तं मूल्यमिन्छेत् । शङ्कलिखित quoted in अपरार्क p. 934.

283. मधुमाससुरासोमं लाक्षा लवणमेव च । एतेषां विक्रयेणैव द्विजश्चान्द्रायणं चरेत् ॥ लघुशातातप 87.

Cb, III)

Sale and barter for brāhmanas

129

the king to inflict a heavy fine upon a brāhmaṇa who engages in the sale of artioles forbidden to be sold and strays from the path ( proper for brāhmaṇas ) in the absence of distress.

Ap. Dh. 8. (I.7. 20. 14-15 )284 states the goneral rule that exchange or barter also of those articles that are forbidden to be sold cannot be resorted to, but adds that barter is allowed of foods with foods, of slaves with slaves, of fragrant things with other fragrant things, of one kind of learning with another. Gaut.285 (VII. 16-21 ) allows the exchange of rasas with rusas, of domestic animals with other domestic animals, of cooked food with an equal measure of uncooked food for immediate use, but forbids the barter of salt, cooked food and sesame with other articles. Manu ( X. 94 ) allows the exchange of onu rasa ( liquid like molasses ) with another (like ghee ), of cooked food with uncooked food, of sesame with an equal quantity of other corn, but does not allow the barter of Balt for any rasa. Vas. Dh, S. (II. 37-39 ) has rules similar to Manu and Āp.286

Manu (X. 116 )287 enumerates ten means of maintaining oneself in āpad ( distress ) viz. learning, arts and crafts, work for wages, service ( i. e. currying out another’s orders), rearing cattle, sale of commodities, agriculture, contentment, alms, money-lending. Out of these some cannot be followed by a brāhmaṇa or a kṣatriya when there is no distress (e. g. a brāhmaṇa cannot engage in service). Yāj. III.42 enumerates seven of these and adds ‘cart’ (i. e. driving carts for hire ), mountain ( subsisting on the price of grass and fuel taken from hills ), a country full of water, trees and shrubs, king (i. e. resorting to or begging from a king). Chāgaleya quoted in Gļ. R. p. 449888

284. अविहितश्तेषां मिथो विनिमयः । अलेन चालस्य मनुष्याणां च मनुष्यै रसानां tuofrerat a una furar 37. y. .1.7. 20. 14-15.

285. PATART THAT THITTAI 17 t : 1 foretat iar # TET HET TA VII. 16–21.

286. TĦT THAT statant ar farer: 1 FETT UT I Facugate FOOT ATE prea fafcat: orang ITX II. 37-39.

287. feat Ford T T Tret for for: 7:1 genau gwregen - FETT: # # X. 116 ; Fra: izred F or Her Tette font: Ararat put it Ha Ha 1 . III. 42.

288. शकटं शाकिनी गायो जालमस्यन्दनं धनम् । अनूप पर्वतो राजा दुर्भिक्षे नव 9: 1 yrday in T. 6. D. 449. The CTT VI. 138 has the first half and roads the 2nd half as Fag: gaat TET TE PIETRE 944. In some Mss. of the f this verse occurs in VI, 6 where the readings are HTFT my i T : Tu rreta HT: II. SYH may be the same as Fir (ru).

A.D. 17

130

speaks of nine means of livelihood in & season of drought, viz. Oart, plot of vegetables, cows, fishing, asyandana (main taining oneself by the slightest effort possible ?), forest, a country full of water, trees and shrubs, & mountain, king. Nārada (rṇādāna 50-55 ) says that three modes of soquiring wealth are common to all, viz. inheritance, a gift of friendli ness or affection and what comes to a man with a wife ( at the time of marriage ); that each of the three varṇas has three special modes of acquiring wealth, viz., receiving gifts, fees as priest and fees for teaching in the case of brāhmaṇas; booty in war, taxes and fines in judicial trials in the case of ksatriyas ; agriculture, rearing cattle and sale of commodities in the case of vaisyas. Nārada ( rṇādāna verses 44-47 ) divides wealth into śukla ( white, pure), sabala ( dark-white, mixed) and krsna (dark ) and each of these into seven varieties. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. chap. 58 also divides the wealth of householders into these three varieties and says that what is earned by the special modes prescribed for each varṇa, inherited wealth, gifts of affection and what comes with the wife-these are sukla (pure ); what is obtained by following the special avocation of the varṇa immediately lower than one’s own varṇa and what is acquired by giving bribes or by sale of forbidden articles or from one who is under one’s obligations is sabala; what is obtained by following the avocations of a varṇa other than the immediately lower one and what is acquired by gambling, theft, violence or fraud is called kroṇa. Baud, Dh. S. (III. 1. 5-6 ) speaks of ten kinds of vrttis ( means of livelihood) and III, 2 explains them at length. Manu (IV. 4-6 ) speaks of five ways of livelihood viz. rta ( i. e. subsisting on grains left in the fields ), amita ( what comes without begging), mrta (alms obtained by begging ), pramṛta ( agriculture ), satyānrta (sale of commodities ) and forbids svavṛtti ( service, lit. living like a dog ). Manu (IV. 9) further says that some brābmanas live by six means (i. e. adhyāpana, yājana, pratigraha, agriculture, rearing cattle and trade), some by three ( viz. the first three ), some by two (yājana and adhyāpana ) and others again only by one (adhyāpana ).

The avocations practised by brāhmaṇas in the pursuit of wealth were many and varied, so much so that from very ancient times the lists of brāhmaṇas not eligible for invitation at srāddhas because they followed unworthy oallings were very formidable. Atri (Anan, ed.) verses 379-383 names ten kinds of brahmanas and briefly defines them, viz. deva-brahmana ( who

Oh. III 1

Classification of brāhmands

131

daily performs bath, sandhyā, japa, homa, worship of gods and honouring of guests and vajśvadeva ), muni-br. ( who is given up to staying in a forest, subsists on roots, fruits and vegetables and performs daily grāddhag ), dvija-br. (who studies the Vedānta, gives up all attachments and is engaged in reflec. ting over Sāmkhya and Yoga ), kṣatra-br. (who fights), vaisya-br. (who engages in agriculture, rearing cattle and trade ), sūdra-br. (who sells lac, salt, dyes like kusu mbha, milk, ghee, honey, mest), niṣāda-br. ( who is a thief and robber, a backbiter and always fond of fish and meat), pasu-br. ( who knows nothing about brahma and is only proud of bis wearing the sacred thread), mleccha-br. (who obstructs or destroys wells, tanks, gardens, without any qualm )and candālā-br. ( who is & fool, devoid of prescribed rites, beyond the pale of all dharma apd cruel ). Atri (384) rather 289 humorously adds ’those who are devoid of Vedic lore, study the śāstras (like grammar, logio &c.), those devoid of śāstric lore study purāṇas (and earn money by reciting thein), those who are devoid even of purāṇa reading become agriculturists, those who are devoid oven of that become bhāgavatas ( pose as great devotees of Śiva or Viṣṇu i. e. become what is called in modern Marathi’ buvā’).’ Devala quoted 890 by Aparārka (pp. 284-285 ) speaks of eight kinds of brāhmaṇas (of whom each succeeding one is superior to each preceding one) viz. mātra (one who is only born in a brāhmana family but has not studied any part of the Veda nor performs the actions appropriate to brāhmaṇas ), brāhmaṇa ( who has studied a portion of the Veda ), śrotriya ( who has studied one vedic śākhā with the six angas and performs the six duties of brāhmaṇas ), anūcāna (who knows the meaning of the Veda and the vedāngas, is of pure heart and has kindled the sacred fires), bhrūna ( who besides being anūcāna always performs yajñas and eats wbat is left after performing yajñas ), rṣikalpa ( who has gained all worldly and Vedic knowledge, and has his mind

289. GRETArs7 TOP STO STORT Tara Tror ni gruretat: froit भवन्ति भ्रष्टास्ततो भागवता भवन्ति । अत्रि 384.

290. Those versos about the eight kinds of “EUTS are quoted in the are also (MS.). The TUTTO I. 1 also gives brief definitions of these sight kinds of प्राह्मण संस्कृतार्या ब्राह्मण्यां ब्राह्मणाजात ARTTEATE: (99: #97) 15 : Frasett*HTETT: 1 Auteur griet पाणिग्रहणासंस्कृतः पाकयज्ञैरपि पजन श्रोत्रियः । स्वाध्यायपर आहितामिहषिर्यहरप्यन चानः । सोमयज्ञैरपि भ्रूणः । संस्काररेतैरुपेतो नियमयमाग्याषिकल्पः । सानाचतुर्वेदतपो. योगासपिनारायणपरायणो निईन्द्रो मुनिरिति । संस्कारविशेषात्पूर्षात्पूर्वात्परो बरीपामिति

132

(Ch. III

under control ), ssi (one who is celibate, of austere life, of truthful speech and able to curse or favour), muni ( to whom a clod of earth and gold are the same, who has ceased from all activity, is devoid of desires and anger &c.). Śatātapa equoted by Aparārka (pp. 286-287) speaks of six classes of persons who, though born brāhmaṇas, are really not brāhmaṇas viz. one who has taken service with a king, one who engages in sale and purcbage (of commodities ), one who officiates for many yajamānas, one who is the officiating priest for the whole village, one who is in the service of a village or town, one who does not perform sandhyā adoration in the morning and evening at the proper time. The Anuśāsanaparva ( 33. 11 ff) shows that some brāhmaṇas were great rogues, others engaged in austerities, some resorted to agriculture and rearing cattle, others subsisted by begging, some were thieves and others were false, some were acrobats and dancers (but it yet recom’nends that brāhmaṇas must be honoured).

The smstis teach that brāhmaṇas doing certain things are to be treated as sūdras. For example, Baud. 292 Dh. 8. (II. 4. 20 ) requires a religious king to employ brāhmaṇas who do not perform the morning and evening adoration ( sanuhyā) in doing work appropriate to sūdras. Vas.293 Dh. S. (III. 1-2) says that brāhmaṇas who are not śrotriyas (learned in the Veda ), who do not teach the veda or who do not kindle the sacred fires become reduced to the status of sūdras and quotes a Mānava śloka ( Manu II. 168) ’that a brāhmaṇa who without studying the Veda works hard to master something else is quickly reduced while still living to the status of a śūdra together with his family.’ Manu ( VIII. 102=Baud. Dh. S. I.

291. 1 727 TESTIT #fa: stranamalai pret 1979 Frett fanta: क्रयविक्रयी। तृतीयो बहुयाज्यः स्यात् चतुर्थों ग्रामयाजक: । पचमस्तु भृतस्तेषां ग्रामस्य

F4 iarrata 4: gai hierat CETTATRIA 11 FETT # 15 areor: Fa: 11 349 Tras PP. 286-287; FrTo ia bis ry ou d. fr. cbnp. III. khanda 5 quotes with variations those very verses (viz. Futsa * I TUTAUTIT Hary: tin: 11).

292. सायं मातः सदा संध्यां ये विमानो उपासते । काम तान् धार्मिको राजा शून *HT TIHTI #. #. #. II. £. 20 (tbis and the preceding verso uro cited 88 Ta’s by somo writers, )

293. अश्रोत्रिया अननुवाक्या अनप्रयो वा शूदसधर्माणो भवन्ति । मानवं पात्र लोक सुदाहरन्ति । योनधीत्य द्विजो वेदमन्यत्र कुरुते श्रमम् । स जीवशेष शुमरवमा गच्छति # # III. 1-2; this verse 18 algo g a ra 22. 23 ; vide also PIFU V. 10 and $67787• 22.21-22 ; arstiteant for a great ITPETT VIII. 24; but the very next verse is gistema fi 91 91 ARA #

Ch. III)

Brāhmaṇas and low avocations

133

5.95) asks the king to treat as sūdras brāhmaṇas who engage in rearing cattle, in the sale of commodities, who are artisans and actors, who are mere servants and money-lenders. Vide Manu X. 92 quoted above (p. 127). Parāśara ( VIII. 24) says 29+ that 8 brābmana who does not repeat the Gāyatri mantri is more impure than even & Śūdra and that brāhmaṇas who do not offer oblations to sacred fires, who are bereft of samdhyā adoration and who do not study the veda are all sūdras and that therefore one should study at least a portion of the veda if he cannot study the whole. Manu (V. 4) 295 sums up in one place the reasons why brāhmaṇas are seized by Death before the allotted span of human life’ on account of not studying the Vedas, on account of giving up the rules of conduct prescribed for them, through idleness and through the faults arising from (partaking forbidden ) food, Death desires to kill brāhmanes.’

A few words must be said about begging. The smṛtis prescribe begging as specially appropriate to brahmacārins (vedio students) and ascetics (yatis ), which will be dealt with at length later on. Begging was not allowed to others except under considerable restrictions. The king of Kekaya 496 is made to boast in the Mahābhārata (Sand 77. 22 ) that no one who is not a brabmacārin begs in his kingdom Gifts of food were to be made daily while performing the five mahāyajñas (this will be treated under vai vadova). Ap. Db. S. II. 5. 10. 1-4 recognizes that begging can properly be resorted to for the following reasons, viz. for the teacher, for ( one’s first) marriage, for & sacrifice, in anxiety to support one’s parents, for warding off the non-observance of the duties of a worthy person ; he onjoins that on these oocasions there is a duty to give according to one’s ability and according to the worth of the person begging and that if a man bogs only for the gratification of his senses (and not for pressing wants) one should pay no heed to such 207

294. arahantweni

Tit

Peet: Far it procurant info FOR THE FIFT XII. 32-33.

296, 3 rfra aqATHITTIFY TEE I STRATEwatere referrer ARA A RE V. 4

296. TI TATET

P

a rimatge 77. 22. 297. Farru haram fereret un Ar ti marts fereat foretasi तत्र गुणान् समीश्य यथाशक्ति देयम् । इन्द्रियप्रीत्यर्थस्य तु भिक्षणमनिमित्तम् । तस्मान

I TT. . II. 5. 10.1-4; compare Manu IV. 251, XI. 1-2, Yoj, I. 216, Gaut, V. 19-20. Thirt 165. 1-2. are ’ rut. TETAP P orte गया । आचापितकार्थि स्वाध्यायामथापि च । पते वै साधवी या मागणा

Walfra: #

L

ELL

184

1 Ch. III

begging. Vas. Dh. S. XII. 2-3 says that a man oppressed by hunger may beg for a little viz. & cultivated or uncultivated plot, a cow, & sheep or ewe, and at last gold, corn or cooked food; but a snālaka should not faint through hunger ; this is the instruction’. Vide Manu X. 114 for practically the same words and Viṣṇu Dh. 8. 3. 79-80. Baud Db. 8. II. 1. 64 includes begging by one who has finished his course of studenthood among actions that make a man impure (aśucikara). Manu XI. 16-17 says that when a person has had no food for three days he may take away (by theft even) from one who is lower than bimself in class as much corn as will be enough for one day, either from the threshing floor or from the field or from his house or from whatever place he oan get it, but he should announce his eotion when the owner asks. Gaut. (18. 28-30 ) and Yāj. IIL 43 are to the same effect. Angiras 898 quoted in Gr. R. (p. 450) allows bogging to the diseased, the indi gent, to one who is torn away from his family and who is on a journey. Saṅkba-Likhita 899 as quoted in Gr.R. (p. 457) say when a man begs he should state the purpose (such as inarriage completion of sacrifice ) of his begging; he should not beg of a woman or of those who are minors or unable to conduct their affairs, nor when the donor is not in & proper place or at & proper time. He should apply the alms to the purpose for which he begged. He should give that portion of the alms wbich remains unused to priests or any other excellent person’. Vas. Dh. S. (III. 4 ) and Parāśara 300 ( I. 60) call upon the king to fine that village where persons of the higher classes wander about begg ing though they are not observers of vows (like brahmacārins ) and are not studying the Veda. The foregoing will show that indiscriminate begging was never allowed or encouraged by the smrtis even for brābmanas, much less for others.

It has been seen above how even during the Vedic period brāhmaṇas had come to be highly eulogised as if they were gods and held superior merely on account of birth. The

298. व्याधितस्य वरिवस्य कुटुम्बास्पच्युतस्य च । अध्वानं प्रतिपक्षस्य भिक्षाचर्या विधी ** I raia wa T. p. 450.

299. fraron Arrat Tural ….. ai Tripp TERIT I sorulae संनिधानान् । अनुदिश्याने भिक्षेतां यदर्थ भिक्षेत समेवार्थ कुर्यात् । शेषमुविम्यो निवेदयेत् ।

FYI FTYRA FIFA Quir ore in TE. C. p. 467. ____800. अवता छनधीयाना पत्रं भैक्षचरा द्विजा । तमाम दण्डयदाजा चोरमकपदो

Hilama III. 4 and 457 ṣi I. 60.

Oh. III)

High eulogy of brāhmaṇas

135

Tai. Br. III. 7. 3 days . One should sacrifice in the right hand of a brāhmaṇa ; the brābmaṇa indeed is Agni-vaisya. nara’. Vide Sāntiparva 343, 13-14, Manu IV. 117, Likhita 31, Vas, Dh. 9. 30.2-5. The same ideas of the sacredness and the superiority of brāhmaṇas were carried forward and further emphasized by the dharma-śāstra works. Most exaggerated and hyperbolical descriptions of the greatness of brāhmaṇas are sown broadcast over all the smrtis and the purāṇas. It is not possible to set out even a small fraction of them. But a few passages may usefully be cited here by way of samples. The Viṣṇu Dh. 8.301 (19, 20-22 ) says ’the gods are invisible deities, but brābmaṇas are visible deities; the worlds are supported by brāhmaṇas ; the gods stay in heaven by the favour of brābmanas; words spoken by brāhmaṇas never come to be untrue’. Manu (I. 100) declares ‘whatever 08 wealth exists on this earth-all that belongs to the brābmaṇa; the brāhmaṇa deserves everything on account of his superiority due to his descent (from the mouth of the Creator ).’ Manu IX. 313-321 contain a hyperbolical eulogy of the power of brābmaṇas, two of which may be set out ‘who would prosper if he oppresses brāhmaṇas that, when angered, might oreate other worlds and other guardians of the worlds and that might deprive the deities of their position as deities’ ( 315 ); ‘& brāhmana, whether learned or not, is a great deity’ ( verse 317 ). Manu XI. 84 is ‘a brābmana by the very fact of his birth is an objeot of honour even to the deities.’ Parāśara (VI. 52-53 ) holds’ whatever defects there may be in vratas, in austerities, or in sacrificial rites, they all vanish when brāhmaṇas support them. Whatever words are spoken by brāhmaṇas are spoken by the gods ; brābmanas have all the gods in them and therefore their words do not fail. *803 The Mabābhārata indulges in very

301, T: Titaraar: 44T ETT: I remain urtarrat AT देन दिवि तिष्ठन्ति देवताः । ब्राह्मणाभिहितं वाक्यं न मिथ्या जायते कचित् ॥ विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 19. 20-22. With the first sūtra note 85 above may be compared.

302. This is a mere arthavada. It means ‘it is as if bis’, for Manu himself (in VIII. 338 ) proscribes for brahmanas who knowing everything aro guilty of theft 64 or 100 or 128 times as muob fine, as & Sudra guilty of the same theft bas to pay if he unknowingly commits it, while the latter pays eight times as much if he knowingly commits it.

303. gada T uri wafat MUEL ETRTOFAUT दितम् ॥ ब्राह्मणा यानि भाषन्ते भाषन्ते तानि देवताः । सर्वदेवमया विप्रा न तद्वचनमन्यथा। gore VI. 52-53. TITAT (1, 30-31 ) has the same two versos with slight

variations.136

frequent eulogies of brābmanas. Adiparva (28. 3-4) say 804

a brāhmaṇa, when provoked, becomes fire, the sun, poison, and weapon; a brābmana is declared to be the guru of all beings.’ Vanaparva 305 ( 303. 16 ) says’ a brābmana is the highest light, he is the highest tapas; the sun shines in heaven on account of the salutations made by the brāhmaṇas’. This and similar dicta closely follow what was expressed in the Vedic period long before e. g. ’the sun would not rise if the brāhmaṇa did not make sacrifice’ (Satapatha II. 3. 1.5); the refrain of Rg. II. 15. 2-9 is tbat Indra performed his great and heroic works under the intoxication of the soma ( offered by the priests in sacrifices ). Rg. IV. 50.7-9 say that a king and others for whom tbe purohita offers prayers win battles, secure booty and help from gods. Anuśāsana-parva08 (33. 17) says * they may make a non-deity into a deity and a deity into & non-deity ; that man may become a king whom they desire to be so, and he who is not desired by them may be defeated.’ Sānti ( 56. 22 ) declares. In this world brahmana is the highest being’.

It should not be supposed that the brāhmanas inserted these eulogies solely for the purpose of increasing their importance, and tightening their hold on the other classes. If the other classes had not themselves more or less shared these ideas, no amount of iteration on the part of brābmapas would have given them the influence which they as a matter of fact wielded. Their influence was a growth of centuries and they themselves were as much parts of the huge edifice of the caste system as the other varṇas. Besides the brāhmanas had no military force behind them. They could only succeed in influenoing the other varṇas by persuasion and their own worth. The brāhmaṇas were the creators and custodians of the vast literature that bad grown up, they were the guardians of the culture of ages, they were expected to shoulder the burdens of teaching and preserving the vast literature on such gifts as were voluntarily made. Though many among them did not

304. अग्निरको विषं शत्रं विमो भवति कोपितः । गुरुहं सर्वभूतानां ब्राह्मणः परिकीर्तितः॥ Hiraga 28. 9-4, vide me. 81, 23 and 25 and HEUTTIOT 30, 23 and 25 for a similar idee.

305. ब्राह्मणो हिपरवेजो बाह्मणो हि परं तपः । बामणानां नमस्कारः सूर्यो विषि fara il race 203. 16.

306, अदेवं दैवतं कुर्युवतं चाप्यदैवतम् । यमिछेयुः स राजा स्यायो भेष्टः स OTTI 11 MATHIFTE 33. 17 and 162. 16.

Oh. TII)

Eulogy of brāhmanas

137

live up to the high ideals set up for their order, there must have been not a few who made as near an approach to the fulólment of the ideal as possible. It was the greatness of these latter that led to the glorification of the whole order to whicb they belonged. Learning and tapas are more or less elusive and impalpable, while birth from brāhmaṇa parents was quite an apparent and palpable thing. Therefore that was seized upon by some writers as the principal reason for the respect to be given to brāhmaṇas. For centuries human societies have everywhere acquiesced in the government and control exercised by small coteries of the elite, generally the elite of birth, who have guided the destinies of their societies on traditional lines of religious and social order. It must be remembered that the smrti works also extol the office of the king ( which was generally hereditary and is so even now ) to the skies. Manu ( VIL 4-11 ) propounds to the theory that the king has in him the parts of buoh gods as Indra and that a king is a great deity in human form. The theory of varṇas as conceived by Manu and other smrtikāras was based upon the idea of the division of labour, on the idea of balancing the rival claims of various sections of the community ; it laid greatest emphasis upon the duties of the varṇas rather than upon their rights and privileges. It raised the brāhmaṇa to the highest pinnacle of reverence, but at the same time it placed before him the ideal of not hankering after temporal power, of leading a life of compara tive poverty and of making his knowledge available to the other classes for a soanty and precarious return. It made the military caste feel that they were not all-in-all, but had to look up to some other class 88 superior to themselves. European writers severely condemn brāhmanas for their greed, selfishness and constant praises of gifts to themselves. But they forget to take account of the circumstances under which the brāhmaṇas were forced to sing the praises of gifts to them. The ideal before brāhmaṇas was to lead a life of comparative poverty; they were forbidden to follow many worldly pursuits and depended on the generosity of their patrong. They did not live in monasteries as Buddhist and Christian monks did nor were they entitled to fixed and fat salaries like the bishops in some Christian countries. They had further to bring up their own families and pupils and had themselves also to make gifts to others. In modern capitalist societies those who have brains

ator fara li FE VII. 8.

307. HET AT

#. D; 18

138

Ch. III

and knowledge tend to become financiers and capitalists, all wealth is ountred in their hands, they reduce most other men to mere wage-earners who are often hardly better than helots. While finding fault with the brāhmaṇa writers of over two thousand years ago for the eulogies they bestowed upon themselves, one should not forget that even in the 20th century when the pursuit of scientifio studies is professed to have reached its zenith, we hear ecstatio and arrogant eulogies of the white man’s burden, of the great and glorious achievements of the Nordio race and the greater and more glorious future it is destined to attain ( vide the very first sentence in Spengler’s *The Decline of the West’, English translation by C. F. Atkinson). The brāhmaṇas never arrogated to themselves the authority to depose kings and to hand over vast territories for ever to whomsoever they liked, as Pope Alexander VI by his Bull of 1493 made over the New World to Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon ( vide Dean Inge’s ‘Christian Ethics’ 1930 p. 160 where this astounding Bull is set out).

It has been seen already that brāhmaṇas had the special privileges of teaching, officiating as priests and accepting gifts made as a religious duty. It is desirable that a comprehensive list of all the privileges claimed by brāhmaṇas (though not always conceded as the sequel will show ) should be set out once for all.

(1) The brāhmaṇa was to be guru( object of reverence )388 to all verṇas by the mere fact of birth. Ap. Dh. 8. (1. 1. 1. 5) says 80. Vas. Dh. 8. (IV. 1 ) says ’ the system of four varṇas is distinguished by its origin and by the special features of the sacraments ( each of them undergoes )’ and quotes Rg. X. 90.12 in support. Manu (1. 31 and 94 ) says that the Creator produced the four varṇas respectively from his mouth, arms, thighs and feet, that (I. 93 ) the brāhmaṇa is by right the master of this whole world on acoount of his birth from the best limb(i.e. the mouth ) of the Creator, on account of his priority (in birth to the kṣatriya and others) and on account of possessing Vedic lore. Manu(X.3) uses almost the same words as Vasiṣtha’the brābmaṇa is the master of the varṇas on account of the peculiar excellence

308. Tann mun m iradual: 1 start gegary FTAT: Harian प… I. 1. 1.6, प्रकृतिविशिष्टं चातुर्वर्ण्य संस्कारविशेषाच । प्राह्मणोस्य मुखमासीवाहू ETTY: $4: 47 formant partiet i 1V. 1-2, sprerat wiert: 28: 1 afin 121. 35.

Brahmana, the guru of all

139

(of his caste ), on account of his superiority of origin (from the mouth of the Creator ), on account of his submitting himself to discipline (or holding up Vedic lore) and on account of the eminence of the sacraments ( samgkāras ) in his case’. Bhisma. parva ( 121. 35 ) says that the brāhmaṇa is superior among all castes. This sense of superiority was carried so far that Ap&m stamba 209 (1. 4. 14. 23), Manu (II. 135 ) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. (32. 17 ) say that a brāhmana only ten years old was to be honoured as a father by & kṣatriya 100 years old.

(2) The brāhmaṇa was to expound the duties of all other classes, to indicate to them proper conduot and their means of livelihood and they were to abide by his directions and the king was to rule in accordance with such directions (Vax. Dh. S. I. 39-41, Manu VII. 37, X. 2). This is supported by the words of the Kathakasambitā 310 ( IX. 16 ) and the Tai. Br, that the brāhmana is indeed the supervisor over the people. The Ait. Br. (37.5) declares that where the might of kṣatriyas is under the control ( or direction) of brālmaṇas that kingdom becomes prosperous, that kingdom is full of heroes 311 &o. This idea is somewhat similar to the teaching of Plato who held that philosophers that had undergone a special training were to rule and were to be politicians, that the government of the best (aristocracy ) was the ideal system. The problem is how to find out the best. Anoient India solved it by leaving the decision of knotty points to the learned brāhmaṇas and the execution of the decisions arrived at by them to the king and the kṣatriyas.

(3) The king was the ruler of all, except brāhmaṇas’ Gautama 318 XI. 1. The Mit, on Yāj. II. 4 explains that these words were only laudatory of the greatness of brāhmaṇas and were not to be taken literally and that the king oould punish brāhmaṇas in appropriate cases. These words of Gautama are a mere echo of certain passages like those in the Vāj. 8. (IX. 40) and the Sat.318 Br. (V, 4.%. 3 and IX. 4. 3. 16 ), where it is said

309. agamat PT : Angsi f at ini sura : FATT I ST9. u. 6. I. 4. 14. 23.

310. "

TUTUR. T. II. 2. 1 and 478 ifee IX. 16. 311. सपा ने प्रणा संत्रं पशमेति सदानं समचं तबीरववाहास्मिन्धीरोजायते। Q. 11. 37. 5.

312. Terrestrin. XI. 1, 7 tra Fruta me ATA TITATTI NON FA Happy FT waterta PART On 05. II. 4.

313. HTATSFT Worrorrat i Taru V. 4. 2. 3, TTT STATS TU: a nd f or startu IX. 4. 8. 16.

140

.

Ch. III

*Som& is the king of us brāhmaṇas’. The idea was that brāhmaṇas had to prepare some and offer it in sacrifices to the gods i.e, they held all wealth for Some and owed all allegiance to Soma, while other people owed allegiance only to the king. The brāhmaṇas alone were to eat the sacrificial food and drink Soma (and kṣatriyas were to drink only a substitute for Soma ). Vide Ait. Br. ( chap. 35 khanda 4). In the Mahābhārata, however, many kings are described as Somapas. So the practice of not allowing the kṣatriyas to drink soma was not universally accepted. Further it was probably not a privilege at all, but only indicates that Soma sacrifices had been mostly neglected by all except brāhmaṇas.

(4) “The king should exonerate ( the brāhmaṇa ) in the six matters, viz. (a brāhmaṇa ) should not be beaten ( whipped ), he should not have fetters put on him, he should not be muloted in fines of money, he should not be driven out ( of the village or country), he should not be consured, he should not be abandoned’ Gaut, VIII.“14 12-13. The Mit, on Yāj. II. 4 explains that these words are not applicable to every brābmaṇa, but only to deeply learned brāhmaṇas described in the preceding sūtras (Gaut. VIII. 4-11). Haradatta adds that even a learned brāhmaṇa is treated in this way only if he commits an offence without pre-medi tation but only through ignorance or oversight. As to corporal punishment for brāhmaṇa offenders, the matter stands thus. Gaut XII.43 says that there is no corporal punishment for a brāhmana (even when he being a thief comes to the king confessing his guilt and asking the king to beat him with a heavy club on the head). Vide Manu XI, 99-100 also. Baud. Dh, S. (I 10. 18-19) first lays down that a brāhmana is to undergo no beating for any offence but allows for & brāhmaṇa guilty of the mortal sins (of brāhmana-murder, incest, drinking liquor, theft of gold) the punishment of branding on the forehead with red. hot iron and banishment from the country. Manu IX. 237 (= Matsyapurāṇa 227. 163-164), Viṣṇu Dh. 8, V. 4-7 prescribe the

$14.97 Tarn Trier i Tita44147541A respiro startarosty originala (11. 8. 12-13) aard e gat tapat…for fiat (na 8.4-11) प्रतिपादितमश्नुतविषयं न ब्राह्मणमात्रविषयम् ॥ मिता. on या. II. 4, न शारीरो Trattava: , 12. 43, aut are a ll I WINPUTFT TETT गुरुतस्पगमनसुवर्णस्तेयारापामेषु कुसिन्ध-भगसगालसरायजास्तनायसा ललाटेऽपित्ता foration int. 1. & I. 10. 18-19, the verse in the route (IX) ‘अयं हि पातकी विभो न बध्यो मनुरवीत् । राधावस्मात निरियो रिभरक्षती सह।”

pointedly refers to AC VIII. 280.

Ch. Iti ) Brāhmana and corporal punishment 141 various figures that were to be branded on the forehead of a brāhmaṇa in the case of various offences. Manu (VIII. 379-380) presoribes shaving of the head for brāhmaṇa offenders where others would have had to suffer the extreme penalty of death and adds that a brāhmaṇa was not to be sentenced to death whatever offence he might have committed and that he is to be banished from the country taking with him all his possessions. Even on this the Mit. ( on Yāj. II. 81 ) observes that it applies only when it is the brāhmaṇa’s first offence (i, e. he may be fined for repeating an offenoe). Yāj. ( II. 270 ), Nārada ( sābasa, Verse 10 ) and Saṅkba 314 prescribe branding and banishment as punishment for brābmanas ( particularly in the case of theft). The brābmana was never above being fined. Manu ( VIII. 123) prescribes fine and banishment for & perjured brāhmaṇa witness, while Manu VIII. 378 presoribes heavy fines for & brāhmana guilty of rape or adultery. The Mit, on 316 Yāj. II. 302 quotes & verge of Manu ( not found in the extant Manusmrti) that in the case of the brāhmaṇa corporal punishment takes the form of complete shaving of the head, he is liable to banishment from the town, he may be branded on the forehead and he may be made to ride through the town on the back of an a88 ( looked upon at all times as the highest form of indignity ). Kaut. also 317 (IV.8) forbids corporal punishment for brāhmaṇas in all offences but prescribes branding on the forehead in the same way as Manu(IX.237) and also banishment and labour on minos. But Kaut makes an exception, viz. he allows a brāhmana to be drowned in water if he is guilty of high treason, or of forcible entry in the king’s haren or of inciting the enemies of the king &o. Katyāyana 318 ( quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. II. 281) proscribes death sentence even for a brāhmaṇa when the latter is guilty of the destruction of a foetus, of theft, of

al6. प्रयाणां वर्णानां धनापहारवधवधक्रिया विवासनाइकरणं ब्राह्मगस्य । शा quoted by the Mar. on Tr. II. 270.

816. wropea gatz ’ I wrot para fatura TRUTH Prevamaa कर्तव्यम् । मामणस्थ बधो मौष पुराभिर्वासनाने । ललाटे चाभिशस्तार प्रयाण गर्दभेन

#iria A Trafato On T II. 80%; the latter half is PITE (HIEF 10), the first half being forcat en quatre Para garai

___817. सर्वापराधेवपीहनीयोबाह्मणः । तस्याभिशस्ताको ललाटे स्याप्यवहारपतनाप । स्तेपेक्षा …… पुरापाने मनवजाप्राह्मण पापकर्माणमण्याकतवणम् । कुर्यानिर्षिष

TH TIPEETATI I u sarg’s artw IV. 8 ___318. तथा कात्यायना। मर्भस्य पावने स्टेनोपासण्या शापातने मार्ग पोपित Putra retirar a Areat quoted by far on I, II. 281.

142

(Ch. dit

striking a brāhmaṇa woman with a weapon and of killing an innocent woman. The Mit. on Yaj. III, 257 thinks it possible that kings sentenced brāhmaṇas to death in spite of the prohibi tion of corporal punishment and we have & olassical illustra tion in the death sentence passed on the brāhmaṇa Carudatta by king Palaka in the Mṛcobakaṭika (IX). The foregoing discussion shows that the only special privilege claimed for the brābmaṇa in the law courts of the land was freedom from death sentence or other corporal punishment like whipping, though rarely he was liable to be sentenced to death also. He was subject to the indignities of branding and being paraded on the back of an ass, to fines and banishment. These claims were very muode rate as compared with the absurd lengths to which the doctrine of ’ benefit of clergy’ was carried in England and other western countries.319 The olergyman in England was not by birth, he bad to be ordained. Yet clergymen claimed that an ordained clerk, a monk or nun charged with serious offences called felonies could be tried only by an ecclesiastical court and this was conceded by the ordinary courts; this privilege was gradually extended to persons not ordained viz. to doorkeepers, readers, exorcists (all of whom merely assisted the clergy ) and finally to all who could read or pretended to read a few words from the Bible. Holdsworth, Pollock and Maitland admit that the procedure in the ecolesiastical courts was little better than a farce (P and M vol. I. p. 426, Holdsworth vol. III p. 296 ), The ecclesiastic courts never pronounced & judgment of blood, the bishop only deprived the offending clerk of orders, and relegated him to a monastery, or kept him in prison for life or a shorter period and very rarely whipping and branding were ordered. Even in the first quarter of the 20th century, European British subjects and Europeans and Americans in general could claim in British India some startling privileges when charged with orimi nal offonces which even the brāhmspas of over two thousand years ago did not claim. For example, under Sec. 443 of the Criminal Procedure Code of India ( as it existed before 1923 ) they could not be tried by any Indian Magistrate (however senior and experienced ) and that in serious Odses like murder, even a Sessions Judge who was himself an European British

319. Vide Pollock and Maitland’s History of English Law’ ( 1895 ) vol. I. Pp. 424.440 and Holdsworth’s History of English Law

4th ed.) vol, I. PP. 615-616, vol. III. pp. 294-302 for the history of the dootring.

Ch. III)

The brāhmana and privileges in courts

143

subject could not sentenop an European British ‘subjeot to more than one year’s imprisonment (Section 449). Any European or American could claim to be tried by a mixed jury of which not less than one half had to be Europeans or Americans, while an Indian offender could not claim the privilege in his own country that not less than one half of the jury that tried him must be Indians. In England even now a peer indicted for treason or felony must be tried by his peers and not by the tribunals that try ordinary men (vide Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd Ed. vol. 25 p. 46). The brāhmaṇas had to submit to trial in the ordinary courts and the smrtis do not generally provide for trial of brāhmaṇas in special eoclesias. tical courts of tbeir own class. The only approach to this western doctrine of benefit of clergy is to be found in the Ap. Dh. 8.,380 where it is said that the teacher and others who have authority over a brāhmana guilty of transgressions should presoribe prāyaścittas for him : if he does not abide by their orders, he should be taken to the king who should hand him over to his own purohita; the latter was to prescribe prāyas cittas ( penances for atonement) for brāhmaṇa offenders. If the latter did not carry out the penances then he was to break them by disciplines according to their ability except that he (the purohita ) was not to prescribe corporal punishment and slavery for brāhmaṇa offenders.

(5) Most smrtis lay down that a śrotriya (a brābmana learned in the Veda ) was to be free from taxes. Certain passages of the Sat. Br. suggest that even in those times brāhmanas were not taxed.381 Ap. Dh. 8.828 II. 10. 26. 10. Vas. Dh. 8. 19. 23, Manu VII, 133 say this. Some claimed this exemption for all brāhmaṇas e. 8. Vas. Db. S. ( I. 42-43 ) says “a king ruling over his subjects according to the rules of the Sāstra should take the sixth part of all wealth except from brāhmaṇas”; the Viṣṇu Dh. 8. III. 26 says ‘a king should

320. There

I Trot TRITT I Targtheni yafumarca स पाह्मणामियुख्यात् । पलविशेषेण वधदास्यवर्ज नियमेरुपशोषयेत् ।। आप. ध. सू. 11. 6. IO. 14-18.

321. surat romar I Am ale ty Truy Tea formu TATTU XIII. 6. 2. 18.

322. 977: train. . . II. 10 26. 10.; Trito UTTUITIT VTT TI 4T WITTET I I. 42-43; rory: Tramp utop

man ran i frogguna III. 26-27.

· 144

Hislory of Dharmaśāstra

( Oh. III

not recover taxes from brāhmaṇas’. Kaut. *83 (II. 1) requires the king to make gifts of brahmadeya lands to Țtviks (who offioiate at solemn sacrifices), teachers, purobitas, śrotriyas, that will yield substantial produce and on which no fines and taxes will be levied. The reason assigned was the belief that the king shared in the religious merit accumulated by the brāhmanas. Vas. 884 (1. 44-46 ) explains ( freedom from taxation is there) because he (the king) secures the sixth part of the istā pārta ( the merit due to sacrifices and performing charitable works of public utility) and it is declared (in a Brāhmaṇa text) tbat the brābmana enriches the Veda, he relieves (others ) from calamities and therefore the brāhmana is not a source of subsistenoe (i. e, should not be taxed by the king ) since Soma is his king; and it is further declared that bliss awaits after death ( the king who does not tax brābmaṇas ).’ The Viṣṇu Dh. S. III. 27 says ’they render unto him the tax of religious merit’. Manu VII. 136 says ’ by the religious merit which the śrotriya accumulates every day when protected by the king, the king’s life, wealth and kingdom increase.’ Vide Manu 8. 305. This sentiment is expressed even by & great poet like Kalidasa 825 ‘forest-dwellers give & sixth part of their tapas ( merit due to austerities) to the king and that is an fnexhaustible treasure’. It is further to be noted that not only grotriyas, but also many other persons were free from taxation. Ap. Dh. 8. (II. 10. 26. 11-17 ) exempts from taxation all woman of the four varṇas, all boys before they show signs of manhood (i. e. before they attain majority ), those who stay with their teachers for learning (even though they may be grown up), those engaged in susterities and devoted to right practices, a sūdra wbo washes the feet (of men of the three higher classes ), the blind, the dumb and the diseased, those who are for bidden to possess wealth ( i. e. Ascetics eto. ). The Vas. Db. S. ( 19. 23.) 388 exempts from taxation the king’s servants, helpless

323. #ferara-grip- TE

A TTUTTTTEET a 9 Cat II. 1. 324, gerina a 8ast *

teroit VATER ATT grup area उद्धरति तस्माद् बाह्मणोनाथः। सोमोस्य राजा भवतीति ह । प्रेत्य चाम्युदायिकमिति ह faxraw i fy 1. 44-46; cop pare the passago from the Bata patba quoted above in note 313.

326. यत्तिष्ठति धणेभ्यो नृपाणां क्षपि तत्फलम् । तपाषागमक्षय्यं ददत्यारण्यका हि #73 #MORTS II. 13

327. Biti wa TTSTEHT ATTA T TOOST: 19. 23

Oh. III)

Taxes and brahmanas

145

persong, ascetics, minors, senile men (above 70), young men, and women who are recently delivered. Manu VIII. 394 con tains a similar provision. Bṛhat-Parāśara 327 (chap. III, Jiv. part II p. 113 ) says ’ a brāhmaṇa engaged in agriculture had to pay nothing to anybody. It is extremely doubtful whether in actual practice kings respected all these rules. Note 275 shows that a brāhmaṇa engaging in agriculture had to pay 3th of the produce just as others did. An inscription of Vikramā. dity.a V, found near Gadag dated sake 934 ( 1012 A. D.) refers to taxes levied even on upanayana, marriages and vedio sacri. fices ( E. I. vol. XX. pp. 64 and 70). The Santiparva ( 76. 2-10 ) contains an interesting disquisition on the taxation of brāhmaṇas. Those brāhmaṇas who have mastered all the lores and who treat all equally well are called brahmasama. Those brāhmaṇas who have studied the Rgveda, Yajurveda and Samaveda and who stick to the peculiar duties of their olass are styled devasama ( verses 2 and 3). A religious king should make those who are not śrotriyas and who do not kindle the sacred fires render taxes and forced labour ( verse 5). Then certain brāhmaṇas are described as kṣatrasama and vaiśyasama. A king whose treasury is empty should levy taxes from all brahmanas except those that are desoribed as brahmasama and devasama.326 Even if these rules were honoured, the claim was not very excessive. The brāhmaṇas who ministered to the religious wants of the people and wbo were to conserve the religious literature and spiritual inheritance of the country and to teach without the liberty to make & contract for fees were never entitled to raise taxes from the people for their benefit. According to the practice of the Roman Catholic Churoh ’the clergy owed no allegiance to the Becular power; they were not under the laws of the land, they paid no taxes to the State. All benefices were put under the Holy See and the Roman chancery compiled & tariff of prioes for which each might be bought’. It would take too long to

327. Ora m agnituur in fornito per FFT

: II TERTTISTT III. ____328. विद्यालक्षणसंपला सर्वत्र समवशिमः। एते ब्रह्मसमा राजन मारणा परि कीर्तिताः ॥ ऋग्यजु:सामसंपमा स्वेषु कर्मस्वपस्थिताः । एते देवसमा …… अभोत्रियाः सर्व एव सचानाहितामयः । तान सर्वान् धार्मिको राजा बलि पिटिंच कारयेत् ॥ …… एसेम्पो बलिमावधाबीनकोशो महीपतिः। ते बझसमेभ्यश्च देवकल्पेभ्य एव च॥ शान्तिपर्व 76. 2-3, 5, 9.

H, D. 19146

( Oh. III

enumerate the other exactions of the same kind - the Tithes, Annates, Procurations, Subsidies and Dispensations.829

(6) In the matter of treasure trove the brahmana was more favourably treated than members of other classes. If a treasure was found by a learned brāhmaṇa he was entitled to keep the whole of it; in other cases the treasure belonged to the king, except a sixth part which was given to the finder if he honestly informed the king about the finding of the treasure. If a king himself found buried treasure, he was to distribute half of it among brāhmaṇas and was to keep for himself the other half. Vide Gautama (X. 43-45 ), Vas Dh. S. ( III. 13-14), Manu (VIII. 37-38), Yaj. II. 34-35, Viṣṇu Dh. S. ( III. 56-64),

Narada (asvamivikraya verses 7-8).

(7) The general rule about the property of one dying heir less is that it escheats to the king, but there was an exception in the case of an heirless brāhmaṇa. Such property was to be distributed among śrotriyas or brābmanas. Vide Gautama 330 28. 39-40, Vas. Dh. S.17.84-87, Baud. Dh. S. I. 5. 118-122, Manu IX. 188-189, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 17. 13-14, Saṅkha..]

(8) The rule of the road was in favour of brāhmaṇas even as against the king. If on a road there was a crowd or obstruc tion, precedence was to be given to the cartman, to a very old man, to one suffering from a disease, to a woman, to a snātaka, to the king; but & king was to give precedence to a śrotriya-Gaut, VI. 21-22. Ap. adds that one carrying 88% a burden should be given precedence and all who desire their own welfare should

329. Vide Dean Inge in Christian Ethics’ chap. IV pp. 160-161 for the enormous greed of the Romish Churob.

330. श्रोत्रिया ब्राह्मणस्यानपत्यस्य रिक्थं भजेरन् । राजेतरेषाम् । गौतम 28. 39-40%B न तु बाह्मणस्य राजा हरेत् । ब्रह्मास्वं तु विर्ष घोरम् । न विषं विषमित्याहुब्रह्मस्वं विषमुच्यते। विषमेकाकिन हन्ति ब्रह्मस्वं पुत्रपौत्रकमिति । त्रैविधसाधुभ्यः संप्रयच्छेत् । वसिष्ठ 17.84-87.

331. परिषद्गामि वा श्रोत्रियदव्यं न राजगामि । शquoted in वि… p. 598.

332. चक्रिवशमीस्थानुमायवधूस्नातकराजभ्यः पथो दानम् । राज्ञा तु श्रोत्रियाय । गौतम VI.21-22; राज्ञः पन्या ब्राह्मणेनासमेत्य । समेत्य तु ब्राह्मणस्यैव पन्थाः। यानस्य भाराभि निहितस्यातुरस्य त्रिया इति सर्वातव्यः। वर्णज्यायसा चेतरैणः । अशिष्टपतितमत्तोन्म तानामात्मस्वस्त्ययनार्थेन सधैरव दातव्यः। आप. ध. सू. II. 5. 11.5-9%3 अन्धस्य पन्धा बधिरस्य पन्थाः श्रियः पन्था भारवाहस्य पन्थाः। राज्ञः पन्था प्राह्मणेनासमेस्य समेत्य त बामणस्यैव पन्थाः ॥ वनपर्व 133. 17 पन्धा देयो ब्राह्मणाय गोम्यो राजम्य एव च। बाप भारतप्ताय गर्भिण्ये दुर्वलस्य च । अनुशासन 104. 25-26. This is almost the same as बौ.ध.. II. 3.67 (which reads गवे राज्ञाचक्षुषे); the latter balt of Vana parva 133. 1 is the same as Ap. Dh. S. II. 11. 5.5-8. Vide श ‘भय ब्राह्मणायाये पन्या देयो राशरयेके । तथानिष्ट गुरुज्येष्ठश्च प्रामणो राजानमतिशते तरने पन्या: quoted by theमिता. on पा. I. 117.

Ch. III)

Brahmana and precedence on a road

147

give precedence to fools, patita, the intoxicated and lunatics and a person of a lower varṇa should give precedenoe to one of a higher varpa. The Mahābhārata (Vanaparv: 133. 1 ) adds the blind and the deaf,(Anugāsana 104. 25-26 ) cows, & pregnant woman and a weak man. Vas. Dh. S. (13,58-60) enumerates the same persons, but says that the snātaka ( one who has just returned from his stay with his guru ) has precedence over the king and that the bride has precedence over all when being taken in a procession ( to the house of the bridegroom ). Manu II. 138-139 has the same list and prefers the onātaka to the king; Yaj. I. 117 has the same rules. Saṅkha ( quoted in the Mit. on Yāj I. 117) mentions the view of some that the king has precedence over the brāhmaṇa, but disapproves of it. Vide Brahmapurana 113, 39 for a list. The Mārkandeyapurāṇa ( 34. 39-41) has a long list which includes a prostitute and one who is an enemy. The Viṣṇu Dh. 8. ( V. 91) prescibes a fine of 25 kārśāpaṇas for him who does not give procedence on the road to one who deserves it. It will be conceded by every one that the above rules ( exoept the one about the precedence of brāhmaṇas over even the king ) are quite reasonable and are informed by a spirit of humanity and chivalry. The rule about learned brāhmaṇas probably owes its origin to the emphasis laid on the importance of the diffusion of learning ( which was not the direct concern of the state in those days, but of the brāhmaṇas ) and tbe superiority of knowledge over mere brute force or military achievements.

(9) The person of the brāhmaṇa was regarded as very sacred from ancient times and so brahmahatya ( killing a brahmana ) was looked upon as the greatest sin. The Tai. 8.3** (V. 3. 12, 1-2) says that he who performs the horse-sacrifice goes beyond (i. e. gets rid of) all sins, even the sin of brāhmana murder. The Tai. S. II. 5. 1. 1 narrates how Indra incurred the sin of brahmahatya by killing Viśyarūpe and how all beings ran him down as ‘brahmahan’. In the Sat. Br. XIII. 3. 1. 1 we read (8. B. E. vol. 44 p. 328 )’ thereby the gods redeem all sin, yea, even the slaying of a brāhmaṇa they thereby redeem and * whosoever kills a human brāhmaṇa here he forsooth is deemed guilty, how much more so who strikes him ( Soma), for Soma is god’ (S. B, E. vol. 26 p. 243 ). The Ohandogya Up. V. 10.9 quotes

333. अपि देतेन ब्रह्महत्यामसरन सर्व पाप्मानं तरति तरति ब्रह्महत्यां योश्वमेधन *** #. #. V. 3. 12. 1-2. The words for …… are quotod by Gaut. 19. 9. and Vax. 22. 6.

148

History of Dharmaśāstra.

1 Ch. III

defence by One Manu IV. 16

of one’s t

a verse declaring brāhmaṇa murder as one of the five mortal sins (mahāpātakas). Gaut. (21, 1) places the murderer of x brahmana at the head of his list of patitas ( persons guilty of mortal sins ). Vas. Dh. S. (I. 20 ) uses the word bhrūnahatyā.334 Manu XI. 54, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 35. 1, Yāj. III. 227 enumerate five mahāpatakas of which brāhmana-murder is one. Manu VIII. 381 declares that there is no worse sin in the world than brāhmaṇa-murder.

A question that very much exercised the minds of all smrtikāras and writers of digestg335 was whether & brāhmaṇa who was himself guilty of violence or serious offences could be killed in self-defence by one attacked. The diota of the smśtis are somewhat conflicting. Manu IV. 162 lays down a general rule prohibiting himsā ( death or injury ) of one’s teacher (of Veda), expounder (of the meaning of the Veda ), one’s parents, one’s other teachers (or elders ), brāhmaṇas, cows and all persons engaged in austerities. Manu XI. 89 lays down that there is no expiation (prayasoitta) that will wipe off the sin of intentionally killing & brāhmaṇa. But Manu himself (VIII. 350-351=Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 189-190=Matsyapurāṇa 227. 115-117=Vṛddha-Hārita IX. 349-350) says ‘one may surely kill without hesitation a man who comes down upon one as an ātatāyin338 ( a desperate character or violent man), whether he be a teacher, a child or an old man or a learned brāhmaṇa. In killing an atatāyin, the killer inours no sin ( or fault), whether he kills him in the presence of people or alone; (in such a case) wrath meets wrath’: Vas. Dh. S. (III. 15-18) expressly says *by killing an ātatāyin they say the killer incurs no sin whatever’ and quotes three verses ‘an incendiary, & poisoner, one armed with a weapon, a robber, one who wrests a field or carries away one’s wife-these six are called atatāyin. When

who has the soutien ohi. Bathraigahe

334. The word ‘bbrūna’ has several meanings. Baud. GF. (1. 4. 8) says that bbrūna is one who knows the whole Vedic lore of his sokhg up to sūtra and pravacana (bbaṣya ?); Vaik. (1.1) says that bhrūpa is a brābmana learned in the Veda who has performed soma sacrifices. Vide noto 290 a bore. Gaut. 21. 9 uses the word in the sense of ‘garbha (foetus),’ wbile in Gaut. 17. 9.bbrūnah&’ is equal to ‘brahmaha’. Both Baud. Db, 8, 1. 5. 94 and Vas. Db. 8. II. 42 quoto & verse wbore bhrūqah& means brahmaha, while Vas. Dh. 8. 20, 23 gives two meanings to it.

335. Vide Viśvarūpa on Yaj. III. 222 and the Mit, on Yaj II. 21, A parārka pp. 1042-44, Sm. C. ( Vyavahāra pp. 313-15. ).

336. ‘Abatayin’ litorally means ‘one who goes with bis bow strong (i. e. roady to kill or fight). Śiva is callod atat yio in Vāj. S. 16. 18 and Kathaka-nambita 17. 12.

Ch. III)

Killing a brāhmaṇa

149

an atatayin comós ( to attack) with the desire to kill (or harm), one may kill him even though he be a complete master of Vedānta; by 80 doing one does not become a brāhmaṇa murderer. If a person kills one who has studied the Veda and who is born of a good family, because the latter is an atatāyin, he does not thereby become a brāhmana-murderer as in that case fury meets fury.’ 337 In the Sāntiparva (34.17 and 19 1328 we have similar verses “If a brāhmaṇa approaches wielding a weapon in a battle and desirous of killing & person, the latter may kill him even if the former be a complete master of the Veda. If a person kills a brābmaṇa ātatāyin who has swerved from right conduct, he does not thereby … … …fury’. Udyog& parya (178. 51-52 ) says that, if a man kills in a battle a brāhmaṇa who fights like a kṣatriya, it is a settled rule that he does not incur the sin of brābinana-murder. Santi (22.5-6) is to the same effect. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (V. 191-192 ) speaks of seven persons as ātatāyin viz, one who has & weapon ready to strike, .one who is about to set fire or administer poison, one who has raised bis hand to give & curse, who sets about to kill by the magic rites mentioned in the Atharvaveda (e. g. such sūktas as I. 19, II. 19, III. 1-%, VII. 108 ), one who is a back. biter and informs the king, one who violates or assaults another’s wife.’ The Matsyapurānu (227. 117-119) is practically to the same effect. Sumantu as quoted by the Mit. (on Yaj. II. 21) and by Aparārka (p. 1043 ) ‘says ’there is no sin in killing an ātatāyin except & cow or a brāhmaṇa *.839 This implies that a brāhmaṇa even if an ātatayin should not be killed, but if he be killed sin is incurred. Kātyāyana340 ( quoted in the Sm. C. and other digests ) declares that one should not kill a brāhinana who is eminont by reason of his tapas, Vedic study and birth, even though he be an ātatāyin; Bhṛgu allows killing when the offender is of a lower caste than that of brābmana’. Bphaspati841 also says that he who would not kill a brāhmana atatayin

337. This last verse is also quoted in Baud. Dh, S. I. 10. 14 and the lattor balf of it is the samo as Santiparva 15. 55.

338. w *1#TORTA darat tot i Paralia Bratara da Wa # SRE 34. 17.

339. Waar hetsuu MTPTT Ara in hl. on . II. 21.

340. swarafa ne falar*TII EU a FIAT fta rut Yu H atya in formar (TTTETC f. 315 )

341. Sera T urkiyani FUT #Saarinen

Treft quoted in F . ( 14. p. 316 )

150

( Oh. III

deserving to be killed for his violence would obtain the merit of an Aśvamedha sacrifice.

Commentators and writers of digests differ in their interpre. tations. Viśvarūpa 348 (on Yāj. III. 222) remarks that he is guilty of brābmana-murder who kills & brāhmaṇa except in battle or except when the latter is an atatāyin, or who kills & brābmana ( not an ātatāyin nor fighting ) on his own account without being employed by another or who brings about the death of such a brāhmana by hiring another to perpetrate the murder for money. He further adds that the man who kills & brāhmana at the instigation of another for money is not guilty of the sin of brāhmaṇa-murder, but it is the instigator who is 80 guilty on the analogy of the rule that the merit or fruit of a sacrifice belongs to him on whose behalf the ștviks perform it. The Mit.343 on Yāj. (II. 21 ) says that the real purport of Manu VIII. 350-351 is not to ordain that a brāhmaṇa must be killed if he is an atatāyin, but those two verses are only an arthavāda ( laudatory or recommendatory diota ), the real meaning being that even & guru and a brābmana who are most highly honoured and who are not fit to be killed at all, may have to be killed if ātatāgins (then what of others ?). The final conclusion of the Mit, is that if a brāhmana who is an ātatāyin is being opposed in self-defence without any desire to kill him and if he dies through mistake or inattention, then the killer inours no punishment at the band of the king and has to undergo a slight prāyascitta i. e. there is really & prohibition to kill an atatayin brāhmaṇa and verses like Manu VIII. 351 refer to an ātatāyin who is not a brāhmaṇa. Medhātithi appears to have held the same view i on Manu VIII. 350-351). Kullūka explains Manu VIII. 330 as meaning that’a guru or a brāhmaṇa or others coming as ātatāyins may be killed when it is impossible to save oneself even by fleeing from them’. Aparārka is of opinion 344

342. आततायिसंग्रामम्यतिरेकेण यो ब्राह्मणमन्येमामयुक्तः स्वातन्त्र्येण हन्या, अन्य या द्रव्यदानादिना वशीकृत्य घातयति स प्रत्येतण्यः। …… यस्तु धनक्रीतः परमयुक्तो हग्यात् तस्य स्वामिगामित्वारिक्रयाफलानामृस्विजामिव ब्रह्महत्याजन्यफलसंबन्धो नास्त्येव । विश्वरूप on 71. III. 222.

___343. माततायिवधे दोषो हन्तुर्भवति कश्चनेत्येतदपि ब्राह्मणादिग्यतिरिक्तविषयमेव । अतश्च प्राह्मणादय आततायिनप्रच आत्मादिघाणार्थ हिंसानभिसंधिना निवार्यमाणाः प्रमा. वाचदि विपोरंस्तत्र लघु प्रायश्चित राजदण्डाभाषश्चति निश्चयः । मिता. on या. II. 21.

344. सण्यापारनिवारणं च यत्र वधमतरेण न संभवति तत्रैव तहधाडशा। पत्र तु दशमाविमदारमात्रेणेष शक्पो निधारयितुं तत्रहतमधो दोपनिमितमेष । अपरार्क on पा.

III, 227 p. 1043.

Oh. III 1

Killing a brāhmana

151

that where an atatāyin brāhmaṇa cannot be prevented from his wioked intent except by killing him, there only the sastrag allow the killing of a brāhmaṇa but where it is possible to ward him off by a mere blow (i. e. without actually killing him ) there would be the sin of brāhmana-murder if he were actually killed. The Sm. O. in a long note appears to hold that an atatāyin brāhmaṇa rushing upon a man to kill him may be killed by the person attacked (there is no sin and no punishment nor penance for it), that a brāhmaṇa atatāyin ( who does not come to kill but) who only siezes one’s fields or wife should not be killed (but lesser harm may be done to him with impunity ) and that kṣatriyas and others if atatāyin may be killed outright. The Vyavahāra-Mayūkha 345 adds a rider that, on account of the prescription contained in the section on kalivarjya (actions forbidden in the Kali age) viz. ’the killing in a properly conducted fight of brāhmaṇas that are ātatāyin’ ( is forbidden in Kali), an ātatāyin brāhmaṇa even when about to kill a person should not be killed by that person in the Kali age, that such a brāhmaṇa was allowed to be killed in former ages, that an ātatāyin brāhmaṇa other than one bent upon killing another was not be killed in all ages. The Viramitrodaya ( pp. 19-27 ) has a long disquisition on this subject but space forbids us from giving even a brief summary of it. It will have been noticed how the sacredness of the brāhmaṇa’s person went on increasing in later ages.

(10) Even threatening & brāhmans with assault, or striking him or drawing blood from his body drew the severest condemnation from very ancient times. The Tai.348 8. (II. 6. 10.1-2) oontains these words ‘He who threatens a brāhmana should be fined a hundred, he who strikes a brāhmaṇa should be fined a thousand, he who draws blood would not reach ( or find ) the abode of pitrs for as many years as the dust particles that may be made into & paste by the quantity of blood drawn. Therefore one should not threaten a brāhmans with assault, nor strike him nor draw his blood’. Gaut. ( 22. 20-22) has a

848. PrisparamouTOT WAY F OR Tot eam Font forget maa f i AETATE p. 242 ; for speed texts vido Appondi.. ___346. योऽपरात शतेन यातयायो निहनत् सहनेण यातयाची लोहितं करण्यापता मस्कय पासून संगृहीयात् वाषतः संवत्सरान पितृलोक न प्रजानादिति । तस्मात् माह्मणाय

UT * Farrar la suta . F. II. 6. 10. 1-2.

152

1 Ch. III

similar 847 dictum, viz. that threatening a brāhmaṇa with assault in wrath prevents entry into heaven for a hundred years (or leads to hell for a hundred years) &o. Jaimini III. 4. 17 considers the question whether the passage in the Tai. 8. is kvatvartha or puruṣārtha.

(11) For certain offences & brāhmana received lesser punishment than members of other classes. For example, Gaut. says 848 * if a kṣatriya reviled a brāhmaṇg the fine was one hundred ( karṣāpaṇas ), if a vaisya did so it was 150 ; but if & brāhmaṇa reviled a ksatriya the fine was 50; if he reviled a vaisya it was only 25, and if a brāhmaṇa reviled a sūdra he was not to be fined. Vide Manu VIII. 267-268 (but Manu pregoribes a fine of twelve for a brābmaṇa reviling a sūdra) which are the same as Nārada ( vākpāruṣya verses 15-16 ), Yāj. II. 206-207. But in the case of certain crimes the brāhmaṇa was to receive heavier punishment. For example, in the case of theft, if a gūdra thief was fined 349 eight, & vaisya 16 and a kṣatriya 32, a brāhmaṇa was fined 64, 100 or 128. Vide Gaut. 21. 12-14 and Manu VIII. 337–338.

(12) According to Gaut. 350 ( XIII. 4 ) a brābmapa could not be cited as a witness by a litigant who was not a brāhmana and the king would not summon him, provided he ( the brāhmaṇa) was not an attesting witness on & document. Narada ( rṇādāpa verse 158 ) lays down that 351 frotriyas, those engaged in austerities, old men, those who have become ascetics, are not to be witnesses because the authoritative texts 80 prescribe but there is no cause assigned for this rule.’ So Nārada’s view was that a srotriya could never be cited as a witness by any litigant (even by a brāhmaṇa litigant). Gaut. impliedly shows that even a srotriya could be oited as a wit ness by a brāhmaṇa. Manu VIII. 65, Viṣṇu Db. S. VIII. 2 also forbid citing a srotriya as a witness.

347. अभिऋद्धावगोरणं ब्राह्मणस्य वर्षशतमस्वर्यम् । निधाते सहसम् । लोहितवर्शने TATTFITCHEIU ata URTETET I STUETA 22. 20.-22.

348. a m atergropparsti saat 34: 1 TETOR fr rurraiera *** fra itan 21. 6-10.

349. HET Arad Tera i ritiro at afateoft forgets. fi quattina 21. 12–14

350. NEOFTH Tataracteutsfartenerint. XIII. 4.

351. श्रोत्रियास्तापसा पद्धा ये च प्रवजिता नरा। असाक्षिणते पचनात्र हेतुका ETT: 11 PITE ( Potera 158).

Ch. III 1

Minor privileges of brāhmaṇas

153

(13) Only certain brāhmaṇas were to be invited for dinner in sraddhas and in rites for gods. Vide Gaut. 15. 5 and 9, Ap. Db. 8. II. 7. 17. 4, Manu III. 124 and 128, Yaj. I, 217, 219, 221.

(14) Oertain sacrifices could be performed only by brahmaṇas. For example, the Sautrāmani sacrifice and the sacrifices called sattras could be performed only by brāhmaṇas.383 But it has to be noted that the Rājasūya sacrifice could performed only by kṣatriyas and that according to Jaimini VI. 6. 24-26 even brāhmanas of Bhrgu, Sunaka and Vasistha gotras could not perform a sattra.

(15) The periods of mourning were less in the case of brābmaṇas. Gaut. 14. 1-4 prescribes ten days of mourning for brāhmaṇas, eleven for ksatriyas, twelve for vaisyas and a month for sūdras. Vas. Dh. S. IV. 27-30, Viṣṇu Db, S. 22. 1-4, Manu V, 83, Yāj. III. 22 contain similar provisions. Later on ten days’ mourning came to be presoribed for all oastes.353

Several other legger privileges are enumerated by Nārada (prakirṇaka, verses 35-39) “The king shall show his face in the inorning before brābmanas first of all and shall salute them all. When nine or seven persons ( of different rank) meet, they shall first make room for the brāhmaṇa to pass 354 by. Further privileges assigned to brāhmanas are: free access to the houses of other people for the purpose of begging alms; the right to collect fuel, flowers, water and the like without its being regarded as a theft35s and to converse with other men’s wives without being restrained ( in such conversation) by others; and the right to cross rivers without paying any fare for the ferry-boat and to be oonveyed ( to the other bank) before other people. When engaged in trading and using a ferry boat, they shall have to pay no toll. A brāhmaṇa who is engaged in travelling, who is tired and has

jotberes 35-4 brahmen

352. FAO Trearea ya: 1 891. Ml. I. 6. 13 ; 80 also Jaimini VI. 6. 16-23 for and VI. 6. 24-26 for the proposition that wigoro of y, and it gotras were not entitled to perform 78.

353. mare portat a gara UTI paragr a ṢTATS TE I iig in FATTO ON T. III. 22.

354. Vide privilego No. 8 (rule about making way ) abovo. Gau tama (VI. 21-22 quoted abovo p. 146 ) namos seven persons, while Vasistha (13. 68-60) mentione nine persons about this rule. Narada has probably these two sutra works in viow here.

355. Vide 379. . . I. 10. 28.3, RU VIII, 339, T. II, 166.

356. D. 20

154

| Ch. III

nothing to eat, commits no wrong by taking two canes of sugar or two esculent roots.

There were some disabilities also in the case of brāhmaṇas which have been indicated in the above discussion (viz. as to avocations, selling articles &o.).

It may be convenient to bring together the disabilities of the sūdra :

(1) He was not allowed to study the Veda. Many of the smrtikāras and writers of digests856 quote several Vedic passages on this point. A śruti text reads ‘(The Creator ) created the brāhmaṇa with Gayatri ( metre), the rājanya with Triṣtubh, the vaisya with Jagati, but he did not create the śūdra with any metre; therefore the sūdra is known to be unfit for the saṁskāra ( of upanayana)’. The study of the Veda follows after Upanayana and the Veda speaks of the Upanayana of only three olasges387 one should perform upanayana for a brāhmaṇa in spring, for a rājanya in summer and in sarad (autumn) for a vaisya.’ Not only was the sūdra not to study the Veda, but Veda study was not to be carried on in his presence ( vide note 75 above ).858 This attitude need not cause wonder. The sacred Vedic literature was largely created and preserved entirely by the brāhmaṇas ( the ksatriyas contributing if at all & very small share in that task ). If the brāhmanas desired to keep their sacred treasure for the twice. born classes in these circumstances, it is understandable and for those ages even excusable. In the 20th century there are vast majorities who are not allowed by small minorities of imperial. istio and capitalistio tendencies to control the just and equitable distribution of the material goods produced mostly by the labour and co-operation of those majorities and doctrines are being openly professed that certain races alone should be imparted higher and scientific knowledge while other 80-called inferior races should be only hewers of wood and drawers of water.

356. गायध्याबामणमसुजत निष्ठभा राजन्यं जगत्या पैश्यं न केनचिच्छन्दसा - मित्यसंस्कायों विज्ञायते । वसिष्ठ IV. 3, quoted by अपरार्क P.23 who quotes

यमन केनचित्समसुजन्छन्दसा तं प्रजापतिः।”

357. THE AUTHOR 1977 at Aai This is the basis of Jaimini VI. 1. 33 and is relied on by Sabara. Vide Ap. Dh. 8. I, 1.1.6.

358. अपापि यमगीताअश्लोकादाहरन्ति । श्मशानमेतस्प्रत्यक्ष ये शुमाः पादचारिणः । Arevara a preveri

fa? 18. 13. Vide 0. 16. 18-19, HT4. 4.4. I. 3. 9. 9 (

w a fat), . I. 148, HC 64. 20.

Ch. III

Sudra not allowed to study Veda

155

There are however faint traces that in ancient times this prohibition of Veda study was not so absolute and universal as the smrtis make it. In the Chandogya Upaniṣad IV. 1-2, we have the story of Jānaśruti Pautrāyana and Raikya where the latter addresses Jānaśruti as sūdra and imparts to him the Samvarga ( absorption ) vidyā.359 It appears that Jānaśruti was a sūdra to whom the vidyā embodied in the Chāndogya ( which is also Veda ) was imparted. It is no doubt true that in the Vedāntasūtra 260 (I. 3. 34 ) the word sūdra is explained not as referring to the class, but as meaning that sorrow ( suc) arose in Jānasruti on hearing the contemptuous talk of the flamingoes about himself and he was overcome ( from dru) by that (i. 8. śūdra is derived from suc and dru). But this far-fetched explanation had to be given because of the practice current in the times of the Vedāntasūtras that the sūdra is not entitled to study the Veda. Gaut. XII. 4 went so far as to presoribe’ if the sūdra intentionally listens for committing to memory the Veda, then his ears should be filled with ( molten ) lead and lao; if he utters the Veda, then his tongue may be cut off ; If he has mastered the Veda his body should be hacked’ 361,

Though the sūdra could not study the Veda, he was not debarred from hearing the itibāsas (like the Mahābhārata ) and the Purāṇas. The 362 Mababbārata (Santi 328. 49 ) expressly says that the four yarṇas should hear the Mahābhārata through & brāhmaṇa as reader. The Bhagavatapurāṇa 263 says that as the three Vedas cannot be learnt by women, sūdras and brāhmaṇas ( who are so only by birth ), the sage ( Vyasa ) composed the story of the Bhārata out of compassion for them. The Sūdraka malakara 284 ( pp. 13-14 ) cites several passages from the purāṇas

359. ETTT: Harare ET UP T e rcerai orato IV.2.3.

360. TF4 RETTET TOTEUTeva ft I TT I, 3. 34; vide vigytror vol. I. 8. 168 where this derivation is followed..

361. अथ हास्य वेवसपशुण्यतमजतुम्यो श्रोत्रपूरणमुदाहरणे जिहाच्छदो धारणे streitai i11 12. 4; vide T ram IX. 21 darura sama * से जिला निपतिता’

362. rataut pofT a: Istinate 328. 49; vide also amfeta 62. 22, and 96. 87.

363. L ATTI # gerTTI FT WAHET gaar

Il PTTK 1. 4. 25; vido f uera IV. 28 wprerrot TTT & fruit दपि। शालग्रामशिला स्पृष्ठा खो गच्छस्पधोगतिम् ॥

364. FC PRET TOT Wuta w afa i 1794. p. 17; strat wrot freeware C o ffeegror i 58. 18.156

Ch. III

to the effect that the sūdra could not study the smrtis and purāṇas by himself. Even Manu II. 16 seems to suggest that only the dvijātis had the privilege to listen to the Manusmṛti (and not sūdras ). The only privilege conceded by the Sūdrakamalakara to the sūdra is that he can acquire knowledge by listening to the purāṇas read by a brāhmaṇa (p. 17); the Kalpataru and other works allowed the sūdra to read and repeat Purāṇa mantras. Samkarācārya on Vedāntasūtra ( I. 3, 38 ) quotes śānti 328. 49 and says that the sūdra has no adhikūra ( eligibility ) for brā hmavidyā based upon a study of the Veda, but that a sūdra can attain spiritual development (just as Vidura and Dharma vyadha mentioned in the Mabābhārata did ) and that he may attain to mokṣa, the fruit of correct knowledge. In certain digests we find & smrti quotation to the effect that sūdras are Vājaga neying. This is 365 explained as meaning that the sūdra should follow the procedure prescribed in the gļhyasūtra of the Vājas& neya Sākbā and a brābmapa should repeat the mantra for him. This is probably based on the Harivamsa (Bhaviṣyat-parva, chap. III. 13 ) “all will expound brahma ; all will be Vājasane yins; when the yuga comes to a close sūdras will make use of the word ‘bhob’ in address” (sarve brahma vadisyanti sarve

Vājasaneyinaḥ).

(2) The sūdras were not to consecrate sacred fires and to perform the solemn Vedic sacrifices. Vide note 73 above. Jaimini ( 1.3, 25-38 ) elaborately discusses this question and arrives at the conclusion that the sūdra oannot consecrate the three sacred fires and so cannot perform Vedic rites. Among the reasons given are that in several Vedic passages only the three higher classes are referred to in the case of the consecration of fires, about the samans to be sung, about the food to be taken when obgerving vrata.366 It is however interesting to note that at least one ancient teacher ( Bādari ) 367 was found wbo advocated that

S

365. ** Stora ##: Toata ga arudi uguait 1:1 21 स्मतिः । आर्षक्रमेण सर्वत्र शूद्रा वाजसनेयिनः । अस्मानः स्वयं कर्म यजुर्वेदीय कारयेत् ।।

OT g inop Tyara huruar pava (p. 634 ). The वर्षक्रियाकौमुदी (p. 576) quotes the words शुमा वाजसनेयिन: as from धर्म gra; while I. p. 51 says at m atiner ret mereari utenti

366. ruitsfrarria da Tira: tre : 1 …… 1 w w णस्य यवागू राजन्यस्य आमिक्षा पेश्यस्य । These are the redic toxte relied upon by Jaimini ( I. 3. 26–38 ) and Sabara.

367. Ma y afterpartarafini turg 1. 3. 87.

Ch. III)

Sudras not authorized for Vedic rites

157

even sūdras could perform Vedic sacrifices. The Bhāradvaja Srauta sūtra 868 (V.2.8) states the opinion of some that the sūdra can consecrate the three sacred Vedic fires. The Kātyāyana. srautasūtra ( I. 4, 5 ) prescribes that all can perform Vedic rites except those who are deficient in a limb, who are not learned in the 389 Veda, who are impotent and sūdras; but the commentary thereon states by way of pūrvapakṣa that there are certain Vedic texts which lead to the inference that the Sūdra had the adhikāra for Vedic rites e. g. in Sat. Br. I. 1. 4. 12 ( S. B. E. vol. XII. p. 28 ) it is said with reference to the Haviṣkpt call “Now there are four different forms of this call, viz. Come hither’ (ehi) in the case of a brāhmana ; ‘approach’ (agahi) and * hasten hither’(ādrava) in the case of a vaisya and a member of the military gaste and ‘run hither’ (adhāva ) in that of a $ūdra.” Similarly in the Somayāga in place of the payovrata (vow to drink milk only ) masłu ( whey ) is prescribed for sūdra (indicating thereby that the sūdra could perform Somayāga) and in Sat. Br. (XIII 8. 3. 11, S. B. E, vol. 44, p. 435 ) with reference to sepulchral mounds it is said ’ for the kṣatriya he may make as high as a man with upstretched arms, for a brābmana reaching up to the mouth, for a woman up to the hips, for a vaisya up to the thighs, for a sūdra up to the knee. The commentary on the Katyayana Srauta I. 1.6 says that the word gūdra here stands for rathakāra because ( aoc, to Yāj, I. 91 ) his mother’s mother is a sūdra woman.

Though the sūdra was not authorized to perform Vedic rites, he was entitled to perform what is called pārta-dharma 390 i. e. the building of wells, tanks, temples, parks and distribution of food as works of charity and gifts on such occasions as eclipses and the Sun’s passage from one zodiacal sign into another and on the 12th and other tithis. He was allowed to perform the five daily sacrifices called Mahāyajñas

368. Roga warunu potpurrfaritate a face proti HTETUT V. 2. 8. (Journal of Vedic studies, Lahore, vol I for Sep. 1934 ).

369. uriarraren amaieran, wt. &. I. 4. 5; com. Burada 1964 AH U R #IH TAHFUra i regi a Tori , Tbo first is mqu I. 1. 4. 18 and the last is sugu XIII, 8. 3. 11. . 370. बापूर्ती द्विजातीनां सामान्यौ धर्मसाधनौ । अधिकारी भवेयः पूर्वधर्म , from wo vorso 46 ; pypy vera6; ar P. 24 order aar पतमानि च । असमदानमारामः पूर्तमित्यभिधीयते ॥ ग्रहोपरागे यहानं पूर्वसंक्रमणेषु च। बावश्पादन यानं पूर्तमित्यभिधीयते ॥. The first verse is quoted from the HETTO and tho scooad from .

158

.

. (Ch. III

in the ordinary fire, he could perform sraddha, he was to think of the devatās and utter loudly the word ’namah’ which was to be the only mantra in his case (i. e. he was not to say *Agnage svāha’ but to think of Agni and say 171 ’namah’). Manu X 127 prescribes that all religious rites for the sūdra are without (Vedic ) mantras. According to some the sūdra could also have what is called Vaivāhika fire ( i. e. are kindled at the time of marriage) in Manu III 67 and Yāj. I. 97, but Medhātithi (on the same verse), the Mit. (on Yaj. I. 121 ), the Madanapārijata (p. 231 ) and other works say that he should offer oblations in the ordinary fire and that there is no Vaivabika fire for the sūdra. All persons including the sūdras and even cāndalas were authorized to repeat the Ramamantra of 13 letters ( Sri Rama jaya Rama jaya jaya Rāma) and the Śiva mantra of five letters (namaḥ śivāya ), while dvijatis could repeat the Śiva mantra of six letters (Om namaḥ śivāya). Vide Śūdra-kamalakarą pp. 30-31, where passages of Varāba, Vamana and Bhaviṣya Purāṇas are cited to show that sūdras are entitled to learn and repeat mantras of Vispu from the Pañcarātra texta and of Śiva, the Sun, Sakti and Vināyaka. The Varāhapurāṇa (128. 22-31) describes the initiation ( dikṣā ) of a sūdra as a devotee of Viṣṇu ( as a bhāgavata ).

(3) As to Sanskaras, there is some apparent confliot among the authorities. Manu X. 126 says “The gūdra incurs no sin (by eating forbidden articles like onions and garlio ), he is not fit for saṁskāras, he has no adhikāra for (authority to perform ) dharma nor is ha forbidden from performing dharma and in IV.80 (which is the same as Vas. Dh. 8. 18. 14 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 71. 48-52) we see one should not give advice to a sūdra, nor give him leavings of food nor of sacrificial oblations, one

371. STTTSFY HEART AT: 17 : Fui artis int. 10. 66-67 ; पप्रायज्ञविधानं तु शूद्रस्यापि विधीयते । तस्य मोक्तो नमस्कार: कुर्वनित्यं न हीयते ॥ लघुविष्णु V.9; दानं च दवाएनोपि पाकयज्ञैर्यजेत च। पिश्यादिकं च सर्व शूनः कुति तेन ॥ Farer ECT III. 8. 33. ; Frey r FT: # # For Frega: 479

storage full e 60. 37-38; T. I. 121 Tulcra: yra Hat SETYTH:

I nto Art 9 TE error on wbich the FANT gives the view of some that the pamaskira mantra is raras raamatud heratfirma qe I FTA: FUT FETET FETAT P ATH’ HET. (on Ay III. 121 सायं त्वमस्य सिद्धस्य पल्पमन्त्रं बलिं हरत् ।) remarks यथा वो नमस्कारहमारयति अज्ञातो …… मात्र इति (गौ.x.68) इति नमस्कारेण प्रत्याग्माता सदस्य मात्र इति H TTOMAT TORRI! The Vippu Dh, 8. 21. 20 says about tapi di kur pa &raddha that it may be performod for kudras on the 12th day ( from doathD without mantras f ront mais !!

Ch. III ]

The sannskūras of sudras

159

should not impart religious instruction to him nor ask him to perform vratas’. Laghuviṣṇu 87% (I. 15 ) contains the dictum that the sūdra is devoid of any samskāra. The Mit. on Yāj. IIL 262 explains the words of Manu IV. 80 about vratas in the case of sūdras as applicable only to those sūdras who are not in attendanoe upon members of the three higher castes and esta blishes that sūdras can perform vratas ( but without home and muttering of mantras ). Aparārka on the same verse ( Manu IV. 80 ) explains that the sūdra cannot perform vratas in person, but only through the medium of a brāhmana. The Sūdra kamelākara (p. 38) holds that sūdras are entitled to perform vratas, fasts, mahādānas and prāyaścittas, but without homa and japa. Manu X. 127 allows religious śūdras to perform all religious sots which dvijātis perform, provided they do not use Vedic mantras. On the other hand Saṅkha (as quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 13 ) opines that samskaras may be performed for sūdras but without Vedic mantras. Yama quoted in Sm. C. (I. p. 14) says the same. Veda-Vyasa (I. 17) prescribes that ten samskāras ( viz. garbhādhina, pumsavana, slmantonnayana, jātakarma, namakarana, niṣkramana, anne prāśana, oaula, karṇavedha and vivāha ) can be performed in the case of sūdras, but without Vedic mantras. Haradatta ( on Gautama X. 51 ) quotes a gļhyakāra to the effect that even in the case of the sūdra the rites of niṣeka, pumgavana, simanton nayana, jātakarma, nāmakarana, annaprāśana and caula are allowed but without Vedic mantras. When Manu prescribes (IL. 32 ) that the sūdra should be given a name conneoted with service, he indicates that the sūdra could perform the ceremony of nāmakarana. So when Manu ( IV. 80 ) states that he deserves no samskāra, what he means is that no samskāra with Vedic mantras was to be performed in his case. Medbātithi on Manu IV. 80 says that the prohibition to give advice and impart instruction in dharma applies only when these are done for making one’s livelihood, but if a śūdra is a friend of the family of a brāhmaṇa friendly advice or instruction oan be given. Vide Sudrakamalakara p. 47 for several views about the samskāras allowed to sūdras.

(4) Liability to higher punishment for certain offences. If a sūdra counmitted adultery with a woman of the three

872. शाश्वतों वर्णस्तु सर्वसंस्कारवर्जितः । उक्तस्तस्प तसंस्कारो द्विजेवारमनिवेद En gang 1. 16.

160

[ Oh. III

higher castes, Gaut.873 ( XII. 1-%) prescribed the cutting off of his penis and forefeiture of all his property and if he was guilty of this offence when entrusted with the duty of pro tecting her, he was to suffer death in addition Vaṣ. Dh. S. 21.1. Manu VIII. 366 prescribe death in the case of a sūdra having intercourse with a brāhmana woman whether she was willing or unwilling. On the other hand, if a brāhmaṇa committed rape on a brāhmaṇa woman he was fined a thousand and five hundred if he was guilty of adultery with her (Manu VIII. 378) and if a brāhmaṇa bad intercourse with a kṣatriya, vaisya or sūdra woman, who was not guarded, he was fined five hundred (Manu VIII. 385 ). Similarly in the case of Vākpārusya (slander and libel) if a sūdra reviled a brāhmaṇa he received corporal punishment or his tongue was cut off (Manu VIII. 270), but if a ksatriya or vaiśya did so they were respectively fined 100 or 150 (Manu VIII. 267 ) and if a brāhmana reviled a sūdra, the brābmand was fined only 12 (Manu VIII. 268 ) or nothing (aco. to Gaut. XII. 10). In the case of theft, how. ever, the sūdra was fined much less. Vide above p. 152 (No. 11 among the privileges of brāhmaṇas).

(5) In the matter of the period for impurity on death or birth the sūdra was held to be impure for a month, while a brāhmana had to observe ten days’ period only. Vide above p. 153 (No. 15 among the privileges of brābmaṇas ).

(6) A gūdra could not be a judge or propound what dharma was. Manu (VIII. 9) and Yāj. I. 3 lay down that when the king does not himself look into the litigation of people owing to pressure of other business, he should appoint a learned brābmaṇa as a judge. Manu (VIII. 20) further says that a king may appoint as his judge even a brahmana who is 80 by birth only (i. e. who does not perform the peculiar duties of brāhmaṇas ), but never a sūdra. Katyayana ( as quoted

373. separanna the penalty for an attemme offender has a bl

374. Faria F IT: FETO intalnit | T 12, 1-2. In parts of America the penalty for an attempt to commit a rape on . wbito woman is burning alive, but only if the offender has a black skin. As to Rome vido Westermarck’s The Origin and Development of moral Ideas’ (1912) vol. I. p. 433 " from the beginning of Elupira the citizens were divided into privileged classes and commodalty ulerque ordo and plebsmand whilst a commoner wbo wa. guilty of murder was punished with death, & murderer belonging to the privileged classes was generally punished with deportation only.” .

Ch. III)

Disabilities of sudras

161

in *** the Mit, on Yaj. I. 3 ) says that when a brahmana is not available (as a judge ) the king may appoint as judge a kṣatriya or a vaidya who is proficient in dharmaśāstra, but he should carefully avoid appointing a śūdra as judge.

(7) A brahmana was not allowed to receive gifts from & Śūdra except under great restrictions. Vide above note 239.

(8) A brāhmaṇa could take875 food at the houses of mem bers of the three classes who performed the duties prescribed for them by the sāstras ( according to Gaut.), but he could not take food from a sūdra except when the sūdra was his own cowherd, or tilled his field or was a hereditary friend of the family, or his own barber or his daba. Vide Gaut. XVII. 6 and Manu IV. 253 (=Viṣṇu Dh. S. 57. 16), Yaj. I. 166, Parāśara IX. 19. Ap. Dh. S. I. 5. 16. 22 saya 876 ’ that food which is brought by an impure śūdra should not be eaten by a brāhmana;’ but Āpastamba allows śūdras to be cooks in brāhmaṇa households provided they were supervised by a member of the three higher classes and observed certain hygienio rules about paring nails, the outting of hair. Manu IV. 211 forbade in general the food of a sūdra to a brahmana and by IV. 223 he laid down that a learned brābmaṇa should not take cooked food from a sūdra who did not perform śraddha and other daily rites ( mahāyajñas ) but that he may take from such a sūdra uncooked grain for one night, if he oannot get food from anywhere else. Baud. Dh. S. (IL. 2. 1) requires a brāhmaṇa to avoid the food of vr̥ṣalas ( śūdras ). Gradually rules about taking food from sūdras became stricter. The Saṅkhasmfti ( 13. 4) remarks that brāhmaṇas fattened on the food given by sūdras are Panktidūṣaka. Parāśara 377 XI. 13 ordains that a brāhmaṇa may take from a sūdra ghee, oil, milk, molasses and food fried in oil or ghee, but should eat it on & river bank and not in the sūdra’s house and the Par, M. adds

374. मामणो यत्र न स्यातुभत्रियं तब योजयेत् । वैश्यं पा धर्मशानशं वं पस्नेन a # 61914a (quoted by Hapo on 9. I. 3)

375. Affirat e tratat pot after I … Tran sport miguint eru: i mira 17. 1 and 6.

376, BUT T H AT I 3774. 4. &. 1. 5. 16. 23, iftixar

T: Heart 3: 1 BT4. 4. . II. 2. 3. 4.

377. वृतं तेल तथा सीरं हुई सैलेन पाचिवम् । गत्वा नदी तटे विप्रो मुखीयारद WATTEN TIETT XI. 13 and ‘AT ATT Touthern ARRUTET

वर्णासभषेपेदितव्यम् । श्रापदि यापता विना प्राणरक्षणे न भवति तापवनमम्पज्ञायवे न mirrortstag is atl. AT. II. part 1 pp. 411-18.

#.D. 21

162

Cb. III

(II. 1. pp. 411-12) that this permission is meant to apply only when the brāhmaṇa is tired by travelling and no food from a momber of another class is available. Haradatta on Gaut. XVII. 6 remarks that a brāhmaṇa could take food from a sūdra who was a cowherd &o. only in the case of very extreme cala mities. Aparārka algo (p. 244 on Yāj. I. 168 ) says the same. In the kalivariya ( actions forbidden in the kali age) the old practice of eating the food of cowherds, barber &c. was for bidden, 878

(9) The sūdra gradually came to be so much looked down upon that he could not touch a brahmana, though at one time he could be a cook in a brāhmaṇa household and a brāb mapa could eat food from his house. In the Anuśāsa naparva (59.33 ) it is said 379 ‘a brāhmaṇa should be served by a sūdra from & distance like blazing fire while he may be waited upon by a kṣatriya or vaisya after touching him.’ Aparārka (p. 1196 ) quotes two smrti texts ‘& brāhmaṇa on touching a sūdra or niṣada becomes pure by acamana ( ceremo nial sipping of water); on touching persons lower than these, he becomes pure by bathing, prāṇāyāma and the strength of tapas; on seeing a ram, & cock, a crow, a dog, a śūdra and an antyāvasāyin (an antyaja ), one should stop the rite that is being performed and on touching them one should take a bath’. On this Aparārka explains that if a man who touched & sūdra cannot bathe then he may resort to sipping water, but if able he must take a bath or that on touching & sat-sūdra one may have recourse to acamana and on touching an asateśūdra one must take a bath. We find from the Gșhyasūtras 380 that in Madhuparka offered to a snātaka the feet of the guest (even if he was a brahmana ) were washed by a sūdra male or female. So there could have been no ban against a sūdra touching a brāhmaṇa then. The Ap. Dh. S. (II. 3. 6.9-10) says that two sūdras should wash the feet of a guest, according to some teachers (in the case of a householder who has several disas ), while Apastamba

378. Tiny T ori roma TruFq’ quoted in fra T (1, p. 12), TI. AT. I. part 1 PP. 134-137 and the of rara.

_379. दूरावणोपचों प्राह्मणोगिरिष ज्वलन् । संसश्य परिचर्पत श्येन for N STERF 59. 33.

380. 6.g. frisy# 1. 12. 18-20 sur graphite Art ARTS Ararat molt mint muret Tourate.

Ch. III )

Disabilities of sudras

163

himself says that one gūdra should wash the guest’s feet and another should sprinkle him with water.341

(10) As the sūdrs could not be initiated into Vedic study, the only aśrama out of the four that he was entitled to was that of the householder. In the Anuśāsanaparva ( 165. 10) we read 88’I am a sūdra and so I have no right to resort to the four asramas’. In the Santiparva383 ( 63. 12-14 ) it is said, ’ in the case of a sūdra who performs service (of the higher olasses ), who has done his duty, who has raised offspring. who has only & short span of life left or is reduced to the 10th stage (i. e. is above 90 years of age ), the fruits of all asramas are laid down ( as obtained by him ) except of the fourth.’ Medha tithi on Menu VI. 97 explains these words 88 meaning that the sūdra by serving brahmanas and prooroating offspring as a house-holder acquires the merit of all aśramas except mokṣa wbloh is the reward of the proper observance of the duties of the fourth aśrama,

(11) The life of a sūdra was esteemed rather low. Yāj. III. 236 and Manu XI. 66 include the killiog of a woman, a sūdra, a vaisya and a kṣatriya among upapātakas; but the prāyasoittas and gifts prescribed for killing these show that the life of the sūdra was not worth much. On killing a kṣatriya, the prāyasoitta prescribed was brahmacarya for six years, gift of 1000 cows and a bull; for killing & vaisya, brahmacarya for three years and gift of 100 cows and a bull; for killing & gūdra brahmacarya for one year, gift of 10 cows and a bull. Gaut. XXII. 14-16, Manu XI, 126-130, Yāj III. 266-267 say practically the same thing. Ap. Db. S.( I. 9. 25. 14-1. 9. 26. 1) says that on killing a crow, a chameleon, a peacock, a cakravāka, flamingo, bhāsa, a frog, ichneumon, muskurat, a dog, a cow and draught ox the prāyaścitta is the same as that for killing a sūdra. Manu (XI. 131 ) says ‘on killing a cat, an iobneumon,

381. gry grant pere dugayatia Spagatisfaga FUTEI SITT. y. II. 3. 6. 9–10.

382. VET ATT À TOTTWETETA I HOTROD 165. 10.

383. grit ander what I wae ET LEFT sprātcai भल्यान्वरगवस्पापि दशधर्मगतस्प वा। आश्रमा विहिताः सः पर्जयित्वा निरामिषम् । शान्ति 63. 12-143स आश्रमास्ट न कर्तण्या किंतषियापस्योत्पादनेन च सर्वाममफलं लभते द्विजातीन पुरुषमाणो गाईस्पेन सर्वाश्रमफलं लभते परिवाजकफलं मोक्षं पर्जपिता मेधा तिथि on मद. VI. 97.

164

History of Dharmadastra

olṣa, a frog, a dog, iguana, owl and crow, the prayasoitta is the same as that for killing & sūdra.384

If the sūdra laboured under certain grave disabilities, he had certain compensating advantages. He could follow almost any profession except the few specially reserved for brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas. Even as to the latter many gūdras became kings and Kaut, in his Arthaśāstra (IX. %) speaks of armies of sūdras ( vide note 266 above). The sūdra was free from the round of countless daily rites. He was compelled to undergo no saṁskāra (except marriage), he could indulge in any kind of food and drink wine, he had to undergo no penances for lapses from the rules of the śāstras, he had to observe no restrictions of gotra and pravara in marriage. Those western writers who turn up their nose at the position of the sūdras in ancient and medieval India conveniently forget what atrocious crimes were perpetrated by their people in the institution of slavery and in their dealings with the Red Indians and other backward coloured races; how nations of Europe out of false pride of race have passed in the 20th century laws prohibiting marriages between the so-called Aryans and non-Aryans and preventing the latter from holding state offices and carrying on several occupations and how discrimination is made against coloured men on railways, in hotels and other places of public resort and how even in India separate third class compartments were reserved on railways for Europeans, for entering which Indians were prosecuted and sentenced in their own country. Vide Emperor ya Narayan 25 Bom. L. R. 26 for such a case.

384. Those who are familiar with thc casos decided in India in wbioh Indian servants or coolios were kicked by European employers and died as a result and in which the offenders word either scquittod or let off on a small fino (on the ground that the deceased bad an oplarged spleen) need not feel surprised at the abovo statomont of affairs in Indig ovor two thousand years ago.