03 Duties and Privileges of Varṇas

CHAPTER III THE DUTIES, DISABILITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE VARṆAS

The duties and privileges of {{varṇas|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,¹ while each of these three varṇas has certain peculiar privileges, which are its principal means of livelihood. {{Teach iog|Teaching}} 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|peculiar}} privileges of kṣatriyas; agriculture, rearing cattle, trade and {{inoney-lending|money-lending}} are the peculiar privileges of vaiśyas. 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 vṛtti or {{jivikū|jīvikā}} (means of livelihood) of the dvijas. The consequence of this bifurcation is that if the first three are not performed or are {{negleoted|neglected}}, the person concerned was deemed to incur {{sia|sin}}, 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.² A few words on each of these duties and privileges must be said at this stage.

Study of the Veda

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 Śatapatha Br. and in the Upaniṣads that certain kings had attained eminence as philosophers or students of {{brahma-vidya|brahmavidyā}} and then even learned brāhmaṇas came to them as pupils. For example, {{Yājāavalkya|Yājñavalkya}} learnt from Janaka (Śat. Br. XI. 6. 2. 1-5), Bālāki Gārgya from [[106]] Ajātaśatru, king of Kāśī (Bṛ. Up. II. 1 and Kauṣītaki Up. IV), {{Svetaketu Arunoya|Śvetaketu Āruṇeya}} from Pravāhaṇa³ 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|Yājñavalkya}} as one who had studied the Vedas and Upaniṣads.⁴ From this it may be inferred that some kṣatriyas at least spent a good deal of time in the study of religious and philosophical doctrines. The conclusion⁵ that is sometimes [[107]] drawn by certain writers that kṣatriyas 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 Ṛgveda, in the Atharvaveda and in some of the Brāhmaṇa treatises. The Upaniṣads are full of brāhmaṇas who independently propounded various aspects of {{brahma-vidya|brahmavidyā}} and there is no reason to suppose that the few kṣatriyas 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 vaiśyas devoted any portion of their time to veda study. The Kāṭhaka-saṃhitā⁶ (IX. 16) indicates that all varṇas studied the Veda since it speaks of a person not a brāhmaṇa, having studied (Vedic) lores and yet not shining (by his learning).

As to brāhmaṇas the matter stands thus. The Nirukta (II. 4) contains four⁷ verses (which are called {{Vidyāsākta|Vidyāsūkta}}), the first of which says that vidyā came to the brāhmaṇa and requested him to guard her as his treasure. The Mahābhāṣya⁸ of Patañjali quotes as an āgama (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 [[108]] gods and pitṛs, for the safeguarding of dharma.’ Atri (25) contains the same idea. Other⁹ sages say that he in whose family Veda (Vedic study) and vedi (consecration of fires for śrauta rites) are given up for three generations becomes a durbrāhmaṇa (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

Teaching the Veda. It is probable that in very remote times the son was taught the Veda by his father. The story of Śvetaketu Āruṇeya (Chāndogya V. 3. 1 and VI. 1. 1-2 and Bṛ. Up. VI. 2. 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.¹⁰ Ṛg. VII. 103. 5 shows that instruction was oral and consisted in the pupil repeating the words uttered by the teacher.¹¹ 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 kṣatriya teachers or philosophers are referred to in the Śatapatha (VIII. 1. 4. 10 and XI. 6. 2) and elsewhere, but they are generally held in low esteem. The Āp. Dh. S.¹² (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 vaiśya, but the only service (which as a pupil) he should render to a kṣatriya or vaiśya teacher is to go after him (and not shampooing his feet etc.) and after the brāhmaṇa finishes his study, the brāhmaṇa may go in front [[109]] (of his 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 (naiṣṭhika brahmacārī) should not stay as a pupil with a teacher who is not a brāhmaṇa and that a brāhmaṇa may learn even from a śūdra 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. Jaimini¹³ says that, as the kṣatriya and vaiśya cannot be priests (ṛtviks), the sattra (a sacrifice extending over many days or years) could be performed only by brāhmaṇas. The Kātyāyana-śrautasūtra uses a similar argument. When Viśvāmitra agreed to perform a sacrifice for Triśaṅku who had been cursed to be a cāṇḍāla, the Rāmāyaṇa says that the gods and sages would not accept the oblations.¹⁴ It is doubtful whether the same rigid rule prevailed in ancient Vedic days. In Ṛg. X. 98. 7 it is said that Devāpi was the purohita of Śantanu and the Nirukta (II. 10) adds that Devāpi and Śantanu were brothers and descendants of Kuru. So, according to the Nirukta at least, a kṣatriya could be a purohita in Vedic times. It may be admitted that the Ṛg. itself does not expressly say that they were brothers. In modern times many writers often speak of brāhmaṇas as the priestly caste or as priests. But this is not a very accurate statement. All brāhmaṇas never 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 ṛtviks at solemn śrauta sacrifices or at domestic 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.¹⁵ Manu (III. 152) says that a devalaka i.e. a brāhmaṇa who took [[110]] 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.

Accepting gifts

The third means of livelihood permitted to brāhmaṇas was receiving gifts from a worthy or unblemished person. According to Yama¹⁶ quoted in the Sm. C. (I. p. 179) pratigraha (receiving gifts) from a 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. 109-111) says that pratigraha from an unworthy person (or a śūdra) 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 whom gifts may be received and on what occasions and what things were proper subjects of gift. The latter two matters will be discussed in detail later on. Here the rules about the persons to whom gifts should be made and from whom they were to be accepted will be set out. It appears from the Bṛ. 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 Bṛ. 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 active pursuit of riches and cherishing cultural preservation and advancement. Manu lays down the general rule that when not in distress a brāhmaṇa should acquire wealth only just sufficient to maintain himself and his family, and to enable him 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) says¹⁷ that a brāhmaṇa householder may [[111]] either accumulate so much grain (but not more) as would fill a kusūla (a granary), or a kumbhī¹⁸ or he may have as much corn as would satisfy all his needs for three days or as much as 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 ṛta by Manu (IV. 5). Manu (IV. 12, 15, 17) lays down that a brāhmaṇa 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 blemished 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. Vyāsa prescribes that a brāhmaṇa should seek to narrow down his means of livelihood and should not hanker after excess of wealth; if he sets about accumulation of wealth he loses the (glorious) status of brāhmaṇya.¹⁹ The Mahābhārata says that when a brāhmaṇa 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.²⁰

Gautama (IX. 63), Yāj. (I. 100), Viṣṇu Dh. S. (63. 1), and Laghu-Vyāsa (II. 8) say that a brāhmaṇa should approach a [[112]] 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 brāhmaṇa 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 a sacrifice. But a brāhmaṇa should not receive a gift from an irreligious king or other irreligious donor. This implies that if the brāhmaṇa is not hungry and has sufficient wealth either obtained by inheritance or partition or in any other way he should not go about seeking for wealth and should not receive gifts (Manu IV. 34). If a brāhmaṇa cannot secure gifts from the above three, then he may do so from any other worthy dvijāti.²¹ When even that is not possible and the brāhmaṇa is in difficulties he was allowed to take a gift from anybody including a śūdra (Manu X. 102-103, Yāj. III. 41); but a brāhmaṇa should not seek gifts from a śūdra for the performance of a sacrifice or for agnihotra, as thereby he becomes a cāṇḍāla in another birth (Manu XI. 24 and 42, Yāj. I. 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.²² (18. 24-25) allows a brāhmaṇa to receive even from a śūdra as much as would enable him to finish marriage ceremonies on which he has embarked or to get materials for a sacrifice when he has begun it. One may take gifts from a śūdra or ugra for paying a fee to one’s guru at the end of the period of brahmacarya (Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 7. 20-21). A brāhmaṇa 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 śāstras²³ (Yāj. I. 140, Manu IV. 87). The smṛtis lay down [[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 brāhmaṇa’s conduct, descent, learning, Vedic study, tapas, the members in his family.²⁴ The ideal set before brāhmaṇas in the matter of pratigraha (receiving gifts) was that he, who though entitled to accept a gift (on account of his 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 brāhmaṇa 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 rule 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 a donee to his place and makes a gift it is middling and when a donor gives if begged by a donee it is inferior.²⁵ Manu (IV. 188-191) prescribes that a man, who is not learned, is reduced to ashes like fuel if he accepts a gift of gold, land, horses, cows, food, clothes, sesame 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 a brāhmaṇa who is not learned should be afraid of receiving gifts.

To the same effect are Yāj. (I. 200-202), Vas. Dh. S. (VI. 32), {{Ausanaga|Auśanasa}} (Jīv. 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 Śat. 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, p. 114) also. The Āp. 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 occasions of purificatory rites and when there is a worthy acceptor’.²⁶ To the same effect are Vas. Dh. S. III. 8 and VI. 30, Manu (III. 128, 132 and IV. 31), Yāj. (I. 201), Dakṣa III. 26 and 31.²⁷ The smṛtis 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, Dakṣa III. 29). Manu (XI. 1-3) says that nine kinds of snātaka brāhmaṇas who are poor are the primary objects of the gift of food and fees inside the sacrificial altar; while to others food and wealth may be given outside the altar (bahirvedi). [[114]]

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. 248-249, Āp. Dh. S. 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. S. 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. S. XIV. 2-11).

Proper donees

Another rule about gifts was that a person should prefer a learned brāhmaṇa 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 [[115]] brāhmaṇa who stays near in favour of a worthy but distant brāhmaṇa.²⁸ Vide Vas. Dh. S. III. 9-10, Manu VIII. 392 (which prescribes a fine of one māṣa for this), Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti IV. 35-38, Bṛhaspati-smṛti 60 and Laghu-Śātātapa 76-79, Gobhila-smṛti II. 66-69. Devala quoted by Aparārka p. 288 and Par. M. I. part 1, p. 181 say that that brāhmaṇa is a 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 slender, who is tender-hearted and of restrained senses. 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 śrotriyas (learned in the Veda) and paṇḍits (those who study śāstras like grammar, logic, mīmāṃsā) are still found who are content with what little patrimony they have got, who engage in the profession of teaching the Veda and śāstras in accordance with ancient rules and who do not go about seeking gifts nor accept invitations for dinner at śrāddhas. In the Śāntiparva 199 brāhmaṇas are divided into two sorts, viz. those who are pravṛtta (i.e. engage in all sorts of activities for acquiring wealth) and those who are nivṛtta 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 a 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),²⁹ Manu VII. 85, Veda-Vyāsa IV. 42, Dakṣa III, [[116]] 28 say that a gift given to a brāhmaṇa (who is only so by caste, but is not learned), to a śrotriya (or ācārya) and to one who has completely mastered all the Vedas (with their subsidiary lores) respectively confers merit which is twice, a hundred thousand times or an infinite number of times more than the merit conferred by a gift to a non-brāhmaṇa. Gautama³⁰ (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 vedapāraga when they seek help for giving a 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 a sacrifice, for their own study or journey, and when everything has been given in a Viśvajit sacrifice and that one must give cooked food to all others who beg for it (except brāhmaṇa, śrotriya and vedapāraga). Manu (XI. 1-3) gives practically the same rule. In the Vaiśvadeva the householder was enjoined to give food to every one including even dogs and cāṇḍālas, as we shall see later on (under³¹ Vaiśvadeva). Medhātithi on Manu IV. 5 says that when a person makes a gift through compassion it is not the dāna and pratigraha spoken of by the śāstra; just as 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 advice is, so a gift made through compassion is made irrespective of caste; and that when non-brāhmaṇas reduced to a helpless condition take what is given by others, it cannot be said that they are assuming to themselves the livelihood by pratigraha which is a peculiar means of livelihood for brāhmaṇas.³²

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 inroads³³ 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 brāhmaṇa, 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 Skandapurāṇa³⁴ as quoted by Aparārka (p. 455) makes Śiva say to Pārvatī ’the Vedic revelation is that śrāddha (food) should be given (to a brāhmaṇa) after inquiry (into his learning and character), but straightforward action is better than scrutiny. When one offers śrāddha straightforwardly without scrutiny, his pitṛs are satisfied and also gods.’ The Vṛddha-Gautama smṛti (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, so a brāhmaṇa is a great deity in whatever condition he may be’.³⁵ “The wise should not despise brāhmaṇas, whether they be squint-eyed, humpbacked, dwarfs, indigent or diseased, since they are [[118]] my forms (i.e. of Kṛṣṇa)”. The Anuśāsanaparva (152. 19)³⁶ says ‘a brāhmaṇa who is not learned is a god and he is a worthy object for gifts and is a great purifier; a learned brāhmaṇa 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 Anglican Church with its hierarchy of Archbishops, Bishops and other divines, nor was there in ancient India any practice of making wills whereby large estates came to the Church as in England (where statutes of Mortmain had to be passed to prevent enormous estates from going to the Church).³⁷ 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 smṛtis recommended that even in śrāddha too many brāhmaṇas should not be invited.³⁸ Besides all brāhmaṇas could not have 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 prescribed ones. From ancient times this was recognised by the dharmaśāstra works. Gaut. (VII. 6 and 7) says that if a brāhmaṇa 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 protecting people) and if even that is not possible then by following the avocations of a vaiśya and Gaut. VII. 26 ordains that a kṣatriya may resort to the profession of the vaiśya in similar circumstances. Baudhāyana [[119]] Dh. S. (II. 2. 77) says the same and then it adds (II. 2. 78 and 80) that Gautama says that it should not be so as the duties of a kṣatriya would be too terrific for a brāhmaṇa and that he should pursue the avocation of a vaiśya. Baudhāyana (I. 1. 20) notes that the profession of arms was practised by the brāhmaṇas of the north. Vas. Dh. S. (II. 22) lays down that persons (of the three higher varṇas) 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, Yāj. III. 35, Nārada (ṛṇādāna 56), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54. 28, Śaṅkha-Likhita say the same³⁹ thing. 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 higher varṇa (vide Vas. Dh. S. II. 23, Manu X. 95). The smṛtis 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), Yāj. III. 35, Nārada (ṛṇādāna 59-60). Manu (X. 96) prescribes that, if a person of a lower varṇa maintains himself through greed by the avocation⁴⁰ peculiar to a higher varṇa, the king should confiscate 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 Śambūka narrated in the Rāmāyaṇa (VII. 73-76). The Uttararāmacarita of Bhavabhūti echoes the same sentiments. A śūdra⁴¹ 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 vaiśya, if unable to maintain himself by the pursuits peculiar to his varṇa, to live by means of the [[120]] actions proper for a śūdra viz. serving members of the twice-born classes. It is also said by Gaut. (VII. 22-24) that a brāhmaṇa 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 śūdra, that according to some ācāryas he may do even those actions when life itself is in danger, but that when he stoops to the actions peculiar to śūdras for maintenance he should not mix himself up with members of that varṇa (by sitting on the same seat with them etc.) or eat articles forbidden to brāhmaṇas (such as leek and garlic) and should not be a mere menial servant. Vide Manu (IV. 4 and 6) and Nārada (ṛṇādāna 57).

According⁴² to all ancient authorities the special duty of the śūdra was to render service to the twice-born classes, to obtain his livelihood from them and serving a brāhmaṇa conferred greater happiness or benefit on the śūdra than serving a kṣatriya and serving a kṣatriya conferred greater good than serving a vaiśya. According to Gaut. (X. 60-61), Manu (X. 124-125) and others, the śūdra was to wear the old or cast-off clothes, umbrellas, sandals, mattress etc. of his patron and the leavings of food (ucchiṣṭa) were to be given to him. If he became old and unable to do work while serving anyone of the higher varṇas he was to be fed by him whom he had formerly served (Gaut. X. 63). In course of time the position of the śūdra improved. If a śūdra⁴³ 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 (ṛṇādāna 58) allowed him to perform the work of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas in times of distress. Yāj. (I. 120) also says that, if unable to maintain himself by the service of dvijas, the śūdra may carry on the profession of a vaiśya or may take to the various crafts. The Mahābhārata allowed a śūdra⁴⁴ who could not maintain himself by the service of higher varṇas to resort to the avocations of a vaiśya, to rearing cattle and to crafts. Others like Laghu-Āśvalāyana (22. 5), Vṛddha-Hārīta (VII. 189, 192) allowed agriculture to the śūdra. The Kālikāpurāṇa quoted in the Gṛ. R. (p. 479) allowed the śūdra to sell all commodities except honey, skins, lākṣā (lac), wines and flesh, while Bṛhat-Parāśara (p. 101) prohibited the śūdra from selling wine and flesh. Devala quoted in the Mit. (on Yāj. I. 120) prescribes that the śūdra 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.⁴⁵ The foregoing will show that the śūdra gradually rose in social status so far as occupation was concerned and could follow all occupations except those specially reserved for the brāhmaṇa, so much so that śūdras became even kings and Manu (IV. 61) had expressly to enjoin upon brāhmaṇas not to dwell in the kingdom of a śūdra.⁴⁶ 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 vaiśyas should command all wealth). Gaut. (X. 64-65) says that the śūdra’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. Śūdras were divided into numerous subcastes. But there were two main divisions. One was aniravasita śūdras (such as carpenters and blacksmiths) and the other niravasita śūdras (like cāṇḍālas); vide note 200 above. Another division of śūdras 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 [[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 śūdras were such that a brāhmaṇa 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.⁴⁷ The Śūdrakamalākara (p. 60) says that asat-śūdras 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 śūdra that drinks liquor.

A few words may now be said about brāhmaṇas being allowed to follow the occupations of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas. From very ancient times brāhmaṇas appear to have followed the profession of arms. Pāṇini (V. 2. 71) teaches⁴⁸ the formation of the word ‘brāhmaṇaka’ as applied to a country, which means “in which Brāhmaṇas follow the profession of arms”. Kauṭilya⁴⁹ (IX. 2) quotes the view of the ācāryas that when there are armies composed of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras each preceding one is better for enlistment than each subsequent, but Kauṭilya himself is against this and adds that the enemy may win over the army of brāhmaṇas by prostration before them. Āpastamba was against the idea of brāhmaṇas following the profession of arms. He says (I. 10. 29. 7)⁵⁰ ‘a brāhmaṇa should not catch hold of a weapon even for examining it (much [[123]] less for attacking others with it)’. Gaut. (VII. 6) allowed a brāhmaṇa to follow a kṣatriya’s profession in case of distress (āpad) and adds (in VII. 25) that even a brāhmaṇa while still following the peculiar avocation of a brāhmaṇa may wield weapons when his life is in danger. The Baudh. Dh. S. (II. 2. 80) quotes a verse ‘for saving cows and brāhmaṇas, for preventing the mixture of varṇas, the brāhmaṇa and vaiśya may take to arms from their concern for dharma.’ The Vas. Dh. S. (III. 24) allows a brāhmaṇa to wield a weapon for protecting himself and for preventing confusion or mingling of varṇas. Manu (VIII. 348-349) allows all dvijātis 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 twice-born classes, in evil times for protecting 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 purposes). Among the heroes of the Mahābhārata there are great warriors and commanders like Droṇa, his son Aśvatthāman, Kṛpa (the maternal uncle of Aśvatthāman) who were brāhmaṇas. The Mahābhārata says that a brāhmaṇa should fight at the order of the king.⁵¹ The Śāntiparva (78. 18) calls upon persons of all varṇas to wield arms when the rules for holding society together 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 Senāpati Puṣyamitra belonged to the Śuṅga gotra and wrested an empire from the last of the Mauryas about 184 B.C. His line was followed by the Kāṇvāyanas, the founder being minister Vāsudeva, a brāhmaṇa, who killed the last Śuṅga about 72 B.C. We learn from the Talagunda pillar inscription of Kākutsthavarman (E. I. Vol. VIII, p. 24) that the founder of the Kadambas, Mayūraśarman, was a brāhmaṇa. In Marāṭha history there were the Peshwas and other brāhmaṇa warriors and commanders.

Though it is said that a brāhmaṇa in distress may follow the occupation of a vaiśya, there were several restrictions imposed upon brāhmaṇas following the occupations of money-lending, agriculture, trade, and the rearing of cattle, which were prescribed as the privileged occupations of vaiśyas. [[124]]

As to money-lending, Gaut.⁵² (X. 5-6) allowed a brāhmaṇa 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 usurer is a greater sinner than even one who is guilty of brāhmaṇa-murder. Manu (X. 117) also forbids usury to brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas, but allows them to charge a low rate of interest to persons engaged in low actions. Nārada (ṛṇādāna 111) forbids usury to brāhmaṇas even in the direst calamities. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 9. 27. 10) prescribes a prāyaścitta⁵³ for a brāhmaṇa lending money at usurious rates. Bṛhaspati as quoted in the Gṛ. R. has a rather amusing verse⁵⁴ ‘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 restrictions 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 culture, 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 and brāhmaṇas

Agriculture—In the dharmaśāstra works there is a great conflict of views about agriculture as an occupation for [[125]] brāhmaṇas. The Vedic Literature does not condemn agriculture in the case of brāhmaṇas. The gambler’s song⁵⁵ (Ṛg. 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 Literature to fields, ploughshares and tilling the soil (vide Ṛg. X. 101. 3 = Tai. S. IV. 2. 5. 5, Vāj. S. XII. 67, Ṛg. I. 110. 5, I. 176. 2, X. 117. 7). Baudhāyana⁵⁶ says (I. 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 resort to both, but he who is unable (to look after both) should give up agriculture’. Baudhāyana further says (II. 2. 82-83) ‘a brāhmaṇa should engage in agriculture before his morning meal and he should only coax again and again his oxen whose noses have not been pierced and whose testicles are not removed and without prodding 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 kṣatriya compelled to follow the avocations of a vaiśya (owing to difficulty of maintenance otherwise) should by all means avoid agriculture which is full of injury to sentient beings and dependent on others (labourers, oxen &c.). Some regard agriculture as a good mode of livelihood 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 agriculture by the word ‘pramṛta’ (pre-eminent in loss of life). Hārīta quoted⁵⁷ in Gṛ. R. p. 429 declares ’the ploughshare (i.e. agriculture) 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 his object (of tiding over [[126]] distress) is accomplished’. Parāśara⁵⁸ (II. 2-4, 7, 14) allows a brāhmaṇa 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 1/6th of the corn to the king, offer 1/21st to gods and 1/30th to brāhmaṇas and then he may not be smeared with sin’. Hārīta quoted by Aparārka (p. 937) has a long prose passage on the treatment to be given to oxen by brāhmaṇas and also Vṛddha-Gautama (Jiv. part 2, p. 571). Vṛddha-Hārīta⁵⁹ (VII. 179 and 182) says that agriculture is common to all varṇas 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 for brāhmaṇas

Sale and barter—We have seen above that a brāhmaṇa is allowed to maintain himself by trade in distress or difficulties (āpad). But there were very great restrictions as to what things could be sold by a brāhmaṇa. According to Gaut. (VII. 8-14) a brāhmaṇa should not engage in the sale of fragrant things (like sandal-wood), fluids (like oils, ghee &c.), cooked food, sesame, 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 slaves), barren cows, heifers and cows liable to abortion. He adds (Gautama VII. 15) that according to some a brāhmaṇa could not sell land, rice, yava, goats and sheep, horses, bulls, freshly delivered cows and [[127]] oxen that are yoked to carts. These restrictions did not apply to a kṣatriya engaging in trade. Āp. Dh. S. I. 7. 20. 12-13⁶⁰ has a similar list but adds among forbidden articles of sale ‘weapons, sticky things (śleṣma, like lac), young stalks (tokma), fermented liquids (kiṇva), the expectation of merit (sukṛtāśā)’ and says that among corns sesame and rice are on no account to be sold. Baudh. Dh. S. II. 1. 77-78 condemns the sale of sesame and rice by saying that he who sells them sells respectively his pitṛs (dead ancestors) and his prāṇas. This arose probably from the close connection of sesame with śrāddha and tarpaṇa. Vas. Dh. S. (II. 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 brāhmaṇa immediately becomes a sinner by the sale of meat, lac and salt and he becomes a śūdra by selling milk for three days’. About sesame, Baudh. Dh. S.⁶¹ (II. 1. 76), Manu (X. 91) and Vas. Dh. S. (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, he becomes a worm and sinks together with his pitṛs in the ordure of a dog’. But it appears that Vasiṣṭha⁶² (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 (ṛṇādāna 66) say that sesame may be bartered for an equal measure of other corn to raise means for religious purposes and for medicine also (according to Nārada). Manu (X. 86-89), Yāj. (III. 36-38), Nārada (ṛṇādāna 61-63) give long lists of articles that Brāhmaṇas were forbidden to sell and that include a few more than those specified above. For example, Manu forbids the sale of bee’s wax, kuśa, indigo, while Yāj. adds soma, mud, blankets made of goat wool, hair (of camarī deer) and oilcakes (piṇyāka) to things forbidden to [[128]] be sold. Śaṅkha-Likhita,⁶³ Udyoga-parva 38. 5, Śāntiparva 78. 4-6, Hārīta (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 Baudh. Dh. S.⁶⁴ prescribes the sale of grass and wood in their natural state and quotes a verse ‘Oh! Brāhmaṇa, 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.’ Nārada⁶⁵ (ṛṇādāna 64-65) states ‘a brāhmaṇa may sell dried wood and grass, except fragrant articles, eraka (a kind of grass), rattan, cotton, roots, kuśa grass; cereals that get split up of their own accord, badara and iṅguda among fruits, cords and threads of cotton provided they are not coloured’. Śaṅkha-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.

Yāj. (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, curds and liquor reduces him to the status of a low class (i.e. of a śūdra). Manu (XI. 62), Viṣṇu Dh. S. (37. 14) and Yāj. (III. 234) include the sale of forbidden articles among upapātakas and Yāj. (III. 265) prescribes cāndrāyaṇa and other prāyaścittas for it. Hārīta (quoted by Aparārka p. 1113 and Mit. on Yāj. III. 265) prescribes various prāyaścittas for the sale of various forbidden articles. Laghu-Śātātapa prescribes (v. 87) cāndrāyaṇa for the sale of honey, meat, wine, soma, lac, salt.⁶⁶ Nārada (ṛṇādāna 67) calls upon [[129]] the king to inflict a heavy fine upon a brāhmaṇa who engages in the sale of articles forbidden to be sold and strays from the path (proper for brāhmaṇas) in the absence of distress.

Āp. Dh. S. (I. 7. 20. 14-15)⁶⁷ states the general 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.⁶⁸ (VII. 16-21) allows the exchange of rasas with rasas, 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 one 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 salt for any rasa. Vas. Dh. S. (II. 37-39) has rules similar to Manu and Āp.⁶⁹

Manu (X. 116)⁷⁰ enumerates ten means of maintaining oneself in āpad (distress) viz. learning, arts and crafts, work for wages, service (i.e. carrying 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 Gṛ. R. p. 449⁷¹ [[130]] speaks of nine means of livelihood in a season of drought, viz. cart, plot of vegetables, cows, fishing, asyandana (maintaining oneself by the slightest effort possible?), forest, a country full of water, trees and shrubs, a mountain, king. Nārada (ṛṇādāna 50-55) says that three modes of acquiring wealth are common to all, viz. inheritance, a gift of friendliness 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 kṣatriyas; agriculture, rearing cattle and sale of commodities in the case of vaiśyas. Nārada (ṛṇādāna verses 44-47) divides wealth into śukla (white, pure), śabala (dark-white, mixed) and kṛṣṇa (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 śukla (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 śabala; 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 kṛṣṇa. Baudh. Dh. S. (III. 1. 5-6) speaks of ten kinds of vṛttis (means of livelihood) and III. 2 explains them at length. Manu (IV. 4-6) speaks of five ways of livelihood viz. ṛta (i.e. subsisting on grains left in the fields), amṛta (what comes without begging), mṛta (alms obtained by begging), pramṛta (agriculture), satyānṛta (sale of commodities) and forbids śvavṛtti (service, lit. living like a dog). Manu (IV. 9) further says that some brāhmaṇas 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 śrāddhas because they followed unworthy callings were very formidable. Atri (Anan. ed.) verses 379-383 names ten kinds of brāhmaṇas and briefly defines them, viz. deva-brāhmaṇa (who [[131]] daily performs bath, sandhyā, japa, homa, worship of gods and honouring of guests and vaiśvadeva), muni-br. (who is given up to staying in a forest, subsists on roots, fruits and vegetables and performs daily śrāddhas), dvija-br. (who studies the Vedānta, gives up all attachments and is engaged in reflecting over Sāṃkhya and Yoga), kṣatra-br. (who fights), vaiśya-br. (who engages in agriculture, rearing cattle and trade), śūdra-br. (who sells lac, salt, dyes like kusumbha, milk, ghee, honey, meat), niṣāda-br. (who is a thief and robber, a backbiter and always fond of fish and meat), paśu-br. (who knows nothing about brahma and is only proud of his wearing the sacred thread), mleccha-br. (who obstructs or destroys wells, tanks, gardens, without any qualm) and caṇḍāla-br. (who is a fool, devoid of prescribed rites, beyond the pale of all dharma and cruel). Atri (384) rather⁷² humorously adds ’those who are devoid of Vedic lore, study the śāstras (like grammar, logic &c.), those devoid of śāstric lore study purāṇas (and earn money by reciting them), those who are devoid even of purāṇa reading become agriculturists, those who are devoid even of that become bhāgavatas (pose as great devotees of Śiva or Viṣṇu i.e. become what is called in modern Marathi ‘buvā’).’ Devala quoted⁷³ 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 brāhmaṇa 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 aṅgas and performs the six duties of brāhmaṇas), anūcāna (who knows the meaning of the Veda and the vedāṅgas, is of pure heart and has kindled the sacred fires), bhrūṇa (who besides being an anūcāna always performs yajñas and eats what is left after performing yajñas), ṛṣikalpa (who has gained all worldly and Vedic knowledge, and has his mind [[132]] under control), ṛṣi (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.). Śātātapa quoted 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 purchase (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 recommends that brāhmaṇas must be honoured).

The smṛtis teach that brāhmaṇas doing certain things are to be treated as śūdras. For example, Baudh.⁷⁴ Dh. S. (II. 4. 20) requires a religious king to employ brāhmaṇas who do not perform the morning and evening adoration (sandhyā) in doing work appropriate to śūdras. Vas.⁷⁵ 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 śūdras 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 = Baudh. Dh. S. I. 5. 95) asks the king to treat as śūdras 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) says⁷⁶ that a brāhmaṇa who does not repeat the Gāyatrī mantra is more impure than even a śūdra and that brāhmaṇas who do not offer oblations to sacred fires, who are bereft of saṃdhyā adoration and who do not study the Veda are all śūdras and that therefore one should study at least a portion of the Veda if he cannot study the whole. Manu (V. 4)⁷⁷ 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 brāhmaṇas.’ [[133]]

A few words must be said about begging. The smṛtis prescribe begging as specially appropriate to brahmacārins (vedic 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 Kekaya⁷⁸ is made to boast in the Mahābhārata (Śānti 77. 22) that no one who is not a brahmacārin begs in his kingdom. Gifts of food were to be made daily while performing the five mahāyajñas (this will be treated under vaiśvadeva). Āp. Dh. 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 a sacrifice, in anxiety to support one’s parents, for warding off the non-observance of the duties of a worthy person; he enjoins that on these occasions 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 begs only for the gratification of his senses (and not for pressing wants) one should pay no heed to such [[134]] begging. Vas. Dh. S. XII. 2-3 says ‘a man oppressed by hunger may beg for a little viz. a cultivated or uncultivated plot, a cow, a sheep or ewe, and at last gold, corn or cooked food; but a snātaka should not faint through hunger; this is the instruction’. Vide Manu X. 114 for practically the same words and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 3. 79-80. Baudh. Dh. S. 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 himself 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 can get it, but he should announce his action when the owner asks. Gaut. (18. 28-30) and Yāj. III. 43 are to the same effect. Aṅgiras⁷⁹ quoted in Gṛ. R. (p. 450) allows begging to the diseased, the indigent, to one who is torn away from his family and who is on a journey. Śaṅkha-Likhita⁸⁰ as quoted in Gṛ. R. (p. 457) say ‘when a man begs he should state the purpose (such as marriage, 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 a proper place or at a proper time. He should apply the alms to the purpose for which he begged. He should give that portion of the alms which remains unused to priests or any other excellent person’. Vas. Dh. S. (III. 4) and Parāśara⁸¹ (I. 60) call upon the king to fine that village where persons of the higher classes wander about begging 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 smṛtis even for brāhmaṇas, 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 [[135]] Tai. Br. III. 7. 3 says ‘One should sacrifice in the right hand of a brāhmaṇa; the brāhmaṇa indeed is Agni-vaiśvānara’. Vide Śāntiparva 343, 13-14, Manu IV. 117, Likhita 31, Vas. Dh. S. 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 smṛtis 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. S.⁸² (19. 20-22) says ’the gods are invisible deities, but brāhmaṇas are visible deities; the worlds are supported by brāhmaṇas; the gods stay in heaven by the favour of brāhmaṇas; words spoken by brāhmaṇas never come to be untrue’. Manu (I. 100) declares ‘whatever⁸³ wealth exists on this earth—all that belongs to the brāhmaṇa; 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 brāhmaṇas, two of which may be set out ‘who would prosper if he oppresses brāhmaṇas that, when angered, might create other worlds and other guardians of the worlds and that might deprive the deities of their position as deities’ (315); ‘a brāhmaṇa, whether learned or not, is a great deity’ (verse 317). Manu XI. 84 is ‘a brāhmaṇa by the very fact of his birth is an object 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; brāhmaṇas have all the gods in them and therefore their words do not fail.’⁸⁴ The Mahābhārata indulges in very [[136]] frequent eulogies of brāhmaṇas. Ādiparva (28. 3-4) says⁸⁵ ‘a brāhmaṇa, when provoked, becomes fire, the sun, poison, and weapon; a brāhmaṇa is declared to be the guru of all beings.’ Vanaparva⁸⁶ (303. 16) says ‘a brāhmaṇa 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’ (Śatapatha II. 3. 1. 5); the refrain of Ṛg. II. 15. 2-9 is that Indra performed his great and heroic works under the intoxication of the soma (offered by the priests in sacrifices). Ṛg. IV. 50. 7-9 say that a king and others for whom the purohita offers prayers win battles, secure booty and help from gods. Anuśāsana-parva⁸⁷ (33. 17) says ’they may make a non-deity into a deity and a deity into a 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.’ Śānti (56. 22) declares ‘In this world brāhmaṇa is the highest being’.

It should not be supposed that the brāhmaṇas 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 brāhmaṇas 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 brāhmaṇas had no military force behind them. They could only succeed in influencing the other varṇas by persuasion and their own worth. The brāhmaṇas were the creators and custodians of the vast literature that had 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 [[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 fulfilment of the ideal as possible. It was the greatness of these latter that led to the glorification of the whole order to which 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 smṛti works also extol the office of the king (which was generally hereditary and is so even now) to the skies. Manu (VII. 4-11) propounds the theory that the king has in him the parts of such gods as Indra and that a king is a great deity in human form.⁸⁸ The theory of varṇas as conceived by Manu and other smṛtikāras 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 comparative poverty and of making his knowledge available to the other classes for a scanty 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 as superior to themselves. European writers severely condemn brāhmaṇas 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 patrons. 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 [[138]] and knowledge tend to become financiers and capitalists, all wealth is {{ountred|centred}} 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 scientific studies is professed to have reached its zenith, we hear ecstatic and arrogant eulogies of the white man’s burden, of the great and glorious achievements of the Nordic 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.

Brāhmaṇa, the guru of all

(1) The brāhmaṇa was to be guru (object of reverence)⁸⁹ to all varṇas by the mere fact of birth. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 1. 1. 5) says so. Vas. Dh. S. (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 Ṛg. X. 90. 12 in support. Manu (I. 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 account 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 Vasiṣṭha ’the brāhmaṇa is the master of the varṇas on account of the peculiar excellence [[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 (saṃskāras) in his case’. Bhīṣmaparva (121. 35) says that the brāhmaṇa is superior among all castes. This sense of superiority was carried so far that Āpastamba⁹⁰ (I. 4. 14. 23), Manu (II. 135) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. (32. 17) say that a brāhmaṇa only ten years old was to be honoured as a father by a kṣatriya 100 years old.

(2) The brāhmaṇa was to expound the duties of all other classes, to indicate to them proper conduct and their means of livelihood and they were to abide by his directions and the king was to rule in accordance with such directions (Vas. Dh. S. I. 39-41, Manu VII. 37, X. 2). This is supported by the words of the Kāṭhakasaṃhitā⁹¹ (IX. 16) and the Tai. Br. that the brāhmaṇa 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 brāhmaṇas that kingdom becomes prosperous, that kingdom is full of heroes⁹² &c. 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. Ancient 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’ Gautama⁹³ 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 could punish brāhmaṇas in appropriate cases. These words of Gautama are a mere echo of certain passages like those in the Vāj. S. (IX. 40) and the Śat.⁹⁴ Br. (V. 4. 2. 3 and IX. 4. 3. 16), where it is said [[140]] ‘Soma is the king of us brāhmaṇas’. The idea was that brāhmaṇas had to prepare soma and offer it in sacrifices to the gods i.e. they held all wealth for Soma 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, khaṇḍa 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.

Brāhmaṇa and corporal punishment

(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 mulcted in fines of money, he should not be driven out (of the village or country), he should not be censured, he should not be abandoned” Gaut. VIII. 12-13.⁹⁵ The Mit. on Yāj. II. 4 explains that these words are not applicable to every brāhmaṇa, but only to deeply learned brāhmaṇas described in the preceding sūtras (Gaut. VIII. 4-11). Hāradatta adds that even a learned brāhmaṇa is treated in this way only if he commits an offence without pre-meditation 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 brāhmaṇa (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. Baudh. Dh. S. (I. 10. 18-19) first lays down that a brāhmaṇa is to undergo no beating for any offence but allows for a brāhmaṇa guilty of the mortal sins (of brāhmaṇa-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. S. V. 4-7 prescribe the [[141]] various figures that were to be branded on the forehead of a brāhmaṇa in the case of various offences. Manu (VIII. 379-380) prescribes 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 offence). Yāj. (II. 270), Nārada (sāhasa, verse 10) and Śaṅkha⁹⁶ prescribe branding and banishment as punishment for brāhmaṇas (particularly in the case of theft). The brāhmaṇa was never above being fined. Manu (VIII. 123) prescribes fine and banishment for a perjured brāhmaṇa witness, while Manu VIII. 378 prescribes heavy fines for a brāhmaṇa guilty of rape or adultery. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 302⁹⁷ quotes a verse of Manu (not found in the extant Manusmṛti) 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 ass (looked upon at all times as the highest form of indignity). Kauṭilya also⁹⁸ (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 mines. But Kauṭilya makes an exception, viz. he allows a brāhmaṇa to be drowned in water if he is guilty of high treason, or of forcible entry in the king’s harem or of inciting the enemies of the king &c. Kātyāyana⁹⁹ (quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. II. 281) prescribes death sentence even for a brāhmaṇa when the latter is guilty of the destruction of a foetus, of theft, of [[142]] striking a brāhmaṇa woman with a weapon and of killing an innocent woman. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 257 thinks it possible that kings sentenced brāhmaṇas to death in spite of the prohibition of corporal punishment and we have a classical illustration in the death sentence passed on the brāhmaṇa Cārudatta by king Pālaka in the Mṛcchakaṭika (IX).

The brāhmaṇa and privileges in courts

The foregoing discussion shows that the only special privilege claimed for the brāhmaṇa 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 moderate as compared with the absurd lengths to which the doctrine of ‘benefit of clergy’ was carried in England and other western countries.¹⁰⁰ The clergyman in England was not by birth, he had 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 ecclesiastical courts was little better than a farce (P and M vol. I. p. 426, Holdsworth vol. III, p. 296). The ecclesiastic courts never pronounced a 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 criminal offences which even the brāhmaṇas 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 cases like murder, even a Sessions Judge who was himself an European British [[143]] subject could not sentence an European British subject 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 smṛtis do not generally provide for trial of brāhmaṇas in special ecclesiastical courts of their own class. The only approach to this western doctrine of benefit of clergy is to be found in the Āp. Dh. S.,¹⁰¹ where it is said that the teacher and others who have authority over a brāhmaṇa guilty of transgressions should prescribe 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 prāyaścittas (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.

Taxes and brāhmaṇas

(5) Most smṛtis lay down that a śrotriya (a brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda) was to be free from taxes. Certain passages of the Śat. Br. suggest that even in those times brāhmaṇas were not taxed.¹⁰² Āp. Dh. S.¹⁰³ II. 10. 26. 10, Vas. Dh. S. 19. 23, Manu VII. 133 say this. Some claimed this exemption for all brāhmaṇas e.g. Vas. Dh. S. (I. 42-43) says “a king ruling over his subjects according to the rules of the Śāstra should take the sixth part of all wealth except from brāhmaṇas”; the Viṣṇu Dh. S. III. 26 says ‘a king should [[144]] not recover taxes from brāhmaṇas’. Kauṭilya¹⁰⁴ (II. 1) requires the king to make gifts of brahmadeya lands to ṛtviks (who officiate at solemn sacrifices), teachers, purohitas, 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 brāhmaṇas. Vas.¹⁰⁵ (I. 44-46) explains ‘(freedom from taxation is there) because he (the king) secures the sixth part of the iṣṭāpūrta (the merit due to sacrifices and performing charitable works of public utility) and it is declared (in a Brāhmaṇa text) that the brāhmaṇa enriches the Veda, he relieves (others) from calamities and therefore the brāhmaṇa is not a source of subsistence (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 brāhmaṇas).’ 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 VIII. 305. This sentiment is expressed even by a great poet like Kālidāsa¹⁰⁶ ‘forest-dwellers give a sixth part of their tapas (merit due to austerities) to the king and that is an inexhaustible treasure’. It is further to be noted that not only śrotriyas, but also many other persons were free from taxation. Āp. Dh. S. (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 austerities and devoted to right practices, a śūdra who washes the feet (of men of the three higher classes), the blind, the dumb and the diseased, those who are forbidden to possess wealth (i.e. ascetics etc.). The Vas. Dh. S. (19. 23)¹⁰⁷ exempts from taxation the king’s servants, helpless [[145]] persons, ascetics, minors, senile men (above 70), young men, and women who are recently delivered. Manu VIII. 394 contains a similar provision. Bṛhat-Parāśara¹⁰⁸ (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 1/6th of the produce just as others did. An inscription of Vikramāditya V, found near Gadag dated śake 934 (1012 A.D.) refers to taxes levied even on upanayana, marriages and vedic sacrifices (E. I. vol. XX, pp. 64 and 70). The Śāntiparva (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 Ṛgveda, Yajurveda and Sāmaveda and who stick to the peculiar duties of their class 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 brāhmaṇas except those that are described as brahmasama and devasama.¹⁰⁹ Even if these rules were honoured, the claim was not very excessive. The brāhmaṇas who ministered to the religious wants of the people and who were to conserve the religious literature and spiritual inheritance of the country and to teach without the liberty to make a contract for fees were never entitled to raise taxes from the people for their benefit. According to the practice of the Roman Catholic Church ’the clergy owed no allegiance to the secular 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 a tariff of prices for which each might be bought’. It would take too long to [[146]] enumerate the other exactions of the same kind—the Tithes, Annates, Procurations, Subsidies and Dispensations.¹¹⁰

(6) In the matter of treasure trove the brāhmaṇa 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), Yāj. II. 34-35, Viṣṇu Dh. S. (III. 56-64), Nārada (asvāmivikraya verses 7-8).

(7) The general rule about the property of one dying heirless 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 brāhmaṇas. Vide Gautama¹¹¹ 28. 39-40, Vas. Dh. S. 17. 84-87, Baudh. Dh. S. I. 5. 118-122, Manu IX. 188-189, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 17. 13-14, Śaṅkha.¹¹²

Brāhmaṇa and precedence on a road

(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 obstruction, 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 a king was to give precedence to a śrotriya—Gaut. VI. 21-22. Āp. adds that one carrying¹¹³ a burden should be given precedence and all who desire their own welfare should [[147]] give precedence to fools, patita, the intoxicated and lunatics and a person of a lower varṇa should give precedence to one of a higher varṇa. The Mahābhārata (Vanaparva 133. 17) adds the blind and the deaf; (Anuśāsana 104. 25-26) cows, a 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 snātaka to the king; Yāj. I. 117 has the same rules. Śaṅkha (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 Brahmapurāṇa 113. 39 for a list. The Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa (34. 39-41) has a long list which includes a prostitute and one who is an enemy. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (V. 91) prescribes a fine of 25 kārṣāpaṇas for him who does not give precedence on the road to one who deserves it. It will be conceded by every one that the above rules (except 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 the superiority of knowledge over mere brute force or military achievements.

Killing a brāhmaṇa

(9) The person of the brāhmaṇa was regarded as very sacred from ancient times and so brahmahatyā (killing a brāhmaṇa) was looked upon as the greatest sin. The Tai. S.¹¹⁴ (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 brāhmaṇa-murder. The Tai. S. II. 5. 1. 1 narrates how Indra incurred the sin of brahmahatyā by killing Viśvarūpa and how all beings ran him down as ‘brahmahan’. In the Śat. Br. XIII. 3. 1. 1 we read (S. 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 Chāndogya Up. V. 10. 9 quotes [[148]] a verse declaring brāhmaṇa murder as one of the five mortal sins (mahāpātakas). Gaut. (21. 1) places the murderer of a brāhmaṇa at the head of his list of patitas (persons guilty of mortal sins). Vas. Dh. S. (I. 20) uses the word bhrūṇahatyā.¹¹⁵ Manu XI. 54, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 35. 1, Yāj. III. 227 enumerate five mahāpātakas of which brāhmaṇa-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 smṛtikāras and writers of digests¹¹⁶ was whether a brāhmaṇa who was himself guilty of violence or serious offences could be killed in self-defence by one attacked. The dicta of the smṛtis 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 (prāyaścitta) that

Of course. I will process the text following all your instructions, including the rule to avoid repeating section headings. Here is the corrected and formatted version.

---

A question that very much exercised the minds of all {{smrtikāras|smṛtikāras}} and writers of digests¹¹⁶ was whether a brāhmaṇa who was himself guilty of violence or serious offences could be killed in self-defence by one attacked. The {{diota|dicta}} of the {{smśtis|smṛtis}} 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|prāyaścitta}}) that will wipe off the sin of intentionally killing a brāhmaṇa. But Manu himself (VIII. 350-351 = Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 189-190 = Matsyapurāṇa 227. 115-117 = Vṛddha-Hārīta IX. 349-350) says ‘one may surely kill without hesitation a man who comes down upon one as an ātatāyin¹¹⁷ (a desperate character or violent man), whether he be a teacher, a child or an old man or a learned brāhmaṇa. In killing an ātatāyin, the killer incurs 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, a poisoner, one armed with a weapon, a robber, one who wrests a field or carries away one’s wife—these six are called ātatāyin. When [[149]] an ātatāyin comes (to attack) with the desire to kill (or harm), one may kill him even though he be a complete master of Vedānta; by so 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 ātatāyin, he does not thereby become a brāhmaṇa-murderer as in that case fury meets fury.’¹¹⁸ In the Śāntiparva (34. 17 and 19)¹¹⁹ we have similar verses “If a brāhmaṇa approaches wielding a weapon in a battle and desirous of killing a person, the latter may kill him even if the former be a complete master of the Veda. If a person kills a brāhmaṇa ātatāyin who has swerved from right conduct, he does not thereby… … …fury’. {{Udyog& parya|Udyogaparva}} (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 brāhmaṇa-murder. Śānti (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 a weapon ready to strike, one who is about to set fire or administer poison, one who has raised his hand to give a curse, who sets about to kill by the magic rites mentioned in the Atharvaveda (e.g. such sūktas as I. 19, II. 19, III. 1-2, VII. 108), one who is a backbiter and informs the king, one who violates or assaults another’s wife.’ The Matsyapurāṇa (227. 117-119) is practically to the same effect. Sumantu as quoted by the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 21) and by Aparārka (p. 1043) says ’there is no sin in killing an ātatāyin except a cow or a brāhmaṇa’.¹²⁰ This implies that a brāhmaṇa even if an ātatāyin should not be killed, but if he be killed sin is incurred. Kātyāyana¹²¹ (quoted in the Sm. C. and other digests) declares that one should not kill a brāhmaṇa who is eminent 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 brāhmaṇa’. Bṛhaspati¹²² also says that he who would not kill a brāhmaṇa ātatāyin [[150]] deserving to be killed for his violence would obtain the merit of an Aśvamedha sacrifice.

Commentators and writers of digests differ in their interpretations. Viśvarūpa¹²³ (on Yāj. III. 222) remarks that he is guilty of brāhmaṇa-murder who kills a brāhmaṇa except in battle or except when the latter is an ātatāyin, or who kills a brāhmaṇa (not an ātatāyin nor fighting) on his own account without being employed by another or who brings about the death of such a brāhmaṇa by hiring another to perpetrate the murder for money. He further adds that the man who kills a brāhmaṇa at the instigation of another for money is not guilty of the sin of brāhmaṇa-murder, but it is the instigator who is so guilty on the analogy of the rule that the merit or fruit of a sacrifice belongs to him on whose behalf the ṛtviks perform it. The Mit.¹²⁴ 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 ātatāyin, but those two verses are only an arthavāda (laudatory or recommendatory dicta), the real meaning being that even a guru and a brāhmaṇa who are most highly honoured and who are not fit to be killed at all, may have to be killed if ātatāyins (then what of others?). The final conclusion of the Mit. is that if a brāhmaṇa 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 incurs no punishment at the hand of the king and has to undergo a slight prāyaścitta i.e. there is really a prohibition to kill an ātatāyin brāhmaṇa and verses like Manu VIII. 351 refer to an ātatāyin who is not a brāhmaṇa. Medhātithi appears to have held the same view (on Manu VIII. 350-351). Kullūka explains Manu VIII. 350 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 opinion¹²⁵ [[151]] that where an ātatāyin brāhmaṇa cannot be prevented from his wicked intent except by killing him, there only the śāstras 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 brāhmaṇa-murder if he were actually killed. The Sm. C. in a long note appears to hold that an ātatāyin 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 ātatāyin (who does not come to kill but) who only seizes 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 ātatāyin may be killed outright. The Vyavahāra-Mayūkha¹²⁶ 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 to be killed in all ages. The Vīramitrodaya (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 a brāhmaṇa with assault, or striking him or drawing blood from his body drew the severest condemnation from very ancient times. The Tai.¹²⁷ S. (II. 6. 10. 1-2) contains these words ‘He who threatens a brāhmaṇa 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 pitṛs for as many years as the dust particles that may be made into a paste by the quantity of blood drawn. Therefore one should not threaten a brāhmaṇa with assault, nor strike him nor draw his blood’. Gaut. (22. 20-22) has a [[152]] similar¹²⁸ 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) &c. Jaimini III. 4. 17 considers the question whether the passage in the Tai. S. is kratvartha or puruṣārtha.

(11) For certain offences a brāhmaṇa received lesser punishment than members of other classes. For example, Gaut. says¹²⁹ ‘if a kṣatriya reviled a brāhmaṇa the fine was one hundred (kārṣāpaṇas), if a vaiśya did so it was 150; but if a brāhmaṇa reviled a kṣatriya the fine was 50; if he reviled a vaiśya it was only 25, and if a brāhmaṇa reviled a śūdra he was not to be fined.’ Vide Manu VIII. 267-268 (but Manu prescribes a fine of twelve for a brāhmaṇa reviling a śūdra) 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 śūdra thief was fined¹³⁰ eight, a vaiśya 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.¹³¹ (XIII. 4) a brāhmaṇa could not be cited as a witness by a litigant who was not a brāhmaṇa and the king would not summon him, provided he (the brāhmaṇa) was not an attesting witness on a document. Nārada (ṛṇādāna verse 158) lays down that¹³² śrotriyas, those engaged in austerities, old men, those who have become ascetics, are not to be witnesses because the authoritative texts so prescribe but there is no cause assigned for this rule.’ So Nārada’s view was that a śrotriya could never be cited as a witness by any litigant (even by a brāhmaṇa litigant). Gaut. impliedly shows that even a śrotriya could be cited as a witness by a brāhmaṇa. Manu VIII. 65, Viṣṇu Dh. S. VIII. 2 also forbid citing a śrotriya as a witness.

Minor privileges of brāhmaṇas

(13) Only certain brāhmaṇas were to be invited for dinner in śrāddhas and in rites for gods. Vide Gaut. 15. 5 and 9, Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 4, Manu III. 124 and 128, Yāj. I. 217, 219, 221. [[153]]

(14) Certain sacrifices could be performed only by brāhmaṇas. For example, the Sautrāmaṇi sacrifice and the sacrifices called sattras could be performed only by brāhmaṇas.¹³³ But it has to be noted that the Rājasūya sacrifice could be performed only by kṣatriyas and that according to Jaimini VI. 6. 24-26 even brāhmaṇas of Bhṛgu, Śunaka and Vasiṣṭha gotras could not perform a sattra.

(15) The periods of mourning were less in the case of brāhmaṇas. Gaut. 14. 1-4 prescribes ten days of mourning for brāhmaṇas, eleven for kṣatriyas, twelve for vaiśyas and a month for śūdras. Vas. Dh. S. IV. 27-30, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 22. 1-4, Manu V. 83, Yāj. III. 22 contain similar provisions. Later on ten days’ mourning came to be prescribed for all castes.¹³⁴

Several other lesser privileges are enumerated by Nārada (prakīrṇaka, verses 35-39) “The king shall show his face in the morning before brāhmaṇas 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 pass¹³⁵ by. Further privileges assigned to brāhmaṇas 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 theft¹³⁶ 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 conveyed (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 [[154]] 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 &c.).

Disabilities of śūdras

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

(1) He was not allowed to study the Veda. Many of the smṛtikāras and writers of digests¹³⁷ quote several Vedic passages on this point. A śruti text reads ‘(The Creator) created the brāhmaṇa with Gāyatrī (metre), the rājanya with Triṣṭubh, the vaiśya with Jagatī, but he did not create the śūdra with any metre; therefore the śūdra is known to be unfit for the saṃskāra (of upanayana)’. The study of the Veda follows after Upanayana and the Veda speaks of the Upanayana of only three classes¹³⁸ ‘one should perform upanayana for a brāhmaṇa in spring, for a rājanya in summer and in śarad (autumn) for a vaiśya.’ Not only was the śūdra not to study the Veda, but Veda study was not to be carried on in his presence (vide note 75 above).¹³⁹ This attitude need not cause wonder. The sacred Vedic literature was largely created and preserved entirely by the brāhmaṇas (the kṣatriyas contributing if at all a very small share in that task). If the brāhmaṇas 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 imperialistic and capitalistic 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 so-called inferior races should be only hewers of wood and drawers of water.

There are however faint traces that in ancient times this prohibition of Veda study was not so absolute and universal as the smṛtis make it. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad IV. 1-2, we have the story of Jānaśruti Pautrāyana and Raikva where the latter addresses Jānaśruti as śūdra and imparts to him the Saṃvarga (absorption) vidyā.¹⁴⁰ It appears that Jānaśruti was a śūdra to whom the vidyā embodied in the Chāndogya (which is also Veda) was imparted. It is no doubt true that in the Vedāntasūtra¹⁴¹ (I. 3. 34) the word śūdra is explained not as referring to the class, but as meaning that sorrow (śuc) arose in Jānaśruti on hearing the contemptuous talk of the flamingoes about himself and he was overcome (from dru) by that (i.e. śūdra is derived from śuc and dru). But this far-fetched explanation had to be given because of the practice current in the times of the Vedāntasūtras that the śūdra is not entitled to study the Veda. Gaut. XII. 4 went so far as to prescribe ‘if the śūdra intentionally listens for committing to memory the Veda, then his ears should be filled with (molten) lead and lac; if he utters the Veda, then his tongue may be cut off; if he has mastered the Veda his body should be hacked’.¹⁴²

Though the śūdra could not study the Veda, he was not debarred from hearing the itihāsas (like the Mahābhārata) and the Purāṇas. The¹⁴³ Mahābhārata (Śānti 328. 49) expressly says that the four varṇas should hear the Mahābhārata through a brāhmaṇa as reader. The Bhāgavatapurāṇa¹⁴⁴ says that as the three Vedas cannot be learnt by women, śūdras and brāhmaṇas (who are so only by birth), the sage (Vyāsa) composed the story of the Bhārata out of compassion for them. The Śūdrakamalākara¹⁴⁵ (pp. 13-14) cites several passages from the purāṇas [[156]] to the effect that the śūdra could not study the smṛtis 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 śūdras). The only privilege conceded by the Śūdrakamalākara to the śūdra is that he can acquire knowledge by listening to the purāṇas read by a brāhmaṇa (p. 17); the Kalpataru and other works allowed the śūdra to read and repeat Purāṇa mantras. Śaṅkarācārya on Vedāntasūtra (I. 3. 38) quotes Śānti 328. 49 and says that the śūdra has no adhikāra (eligibility) for brahmavidyā based upon a study of the Veda, but that a śūdra can attain spiritual development (just as Vidura and Dharmavyādha mentioned in the Mahābhārata did) and that he may attain to mokṣa, the fruit of correct knowledge. In certain digests we find a smṛti quotation to the effect that śūdras are Vājasaneyins. This is¹⁴⁶ explained as meaning that the śūdra should follow the procedure prescribed in the gṛhyasūtra of the Vājasaneya Śākhā and a brāhmaṇa should repeat the mantra for him. This is probably based on the Harivaṃśa (Bhaviṣyat-parva, chap. III. 13) “all will expound brahma; all will be Vājasaneyins; when the yuga comes to a close śūdras will make use of the word ‘bhoḥ’ in address” (sarve brahma vadiṣyanti sarve Vājasaneyinaḥ).

Śūdras not authorized for Vedic rites

(2) The śūdras were not to consecrate sacred fires and to perform the solemn Vedic sacrifices. Vide note 73 above. Jaimini (I. 3. 25-38) elaborately discusses this question and arrives at the conclusion that the śūdra cannot 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 sāmans to be sung, about the food to be taken when observing vrata.¹⁴⁷ It is however interesting to note that at least one ancient teacher (Bādari)¹⁴⁸ was found who advocated that [[157]] even śūdras could perform Vedic sacrifices. The Bhāradvāja Śrauta-sūtra¹⁴⁹ (V. 2. 8) states the opinion of some that the śūdra can consecrate the three sacred Vedic fires. The Kātyāyana-śrautasūtra (I. 4. 5) prescribes that all can perform Vedic rites except those who are deficient in a limb, who are not learned in the¹⁵⁰ Veda, who are impotent and śūdras; but the commentary thereon states by way of pūrvapakṣa that there are certain Vedic texts which lead to the inference that the śūdra had the adhikāra for Vedic rites e.g. in Śat. Br. I. 1. 4. 12 (S. B. E. vol. XII, p. 28) it is said with reference to the Haviṣkṛt call “Now there are four different forms of this call, viz. ‘Come hither’ (ehi) in the case of a brāhmaṇa; ‘approach’ (āgahi) and ‘hasten hither’ (ādrava) in the case of a vaiśya and a member of the military caste and ‘run hither’ (ādhāva) in that of a śūdra.” Similarly in the Somayāga in place of the payovrata (vow to drink milk only) mastu (whey) is prescribed for śūdra (indicating thereby that the śūdra could perform a Somayāga) and in Śat. 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 it as high as a man with upstretched arms, for a brāhmaṇa reaching up to the mouth, for a woman up to the hips, for a vaiśya up to the thighs, for a śūdra up to the knee’. The commentary on the Kātyāyana-Śrauta I. 1. 6 says that the word śūdra here stands for rathakāra because (acc. to Yāj. I. 95) his mother’s mother is a śūdra woman.

Though the śūdra was not authorized to perform Vedic rites, he was entitled to perform what is called pūrta-dharma¹⁵¹ 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 [[158]] in the ordinary fire, he could perform śrāddha, he was to think of the devatās and utter loudly the word ’namaḥ’ which was to be the only mantra in his case (i.e. he was not to say ‘Agnaye svāhā’ but to think of Agni and say[^371] ’namaḥ’). Manu X. 127 prescribes that all religious rites for the śūdra are without (Vedic) mantras. According to some the śūdra could also have what is called Vaivāhika fire (i.e. fire kindled at the time of marriage) in Manu III. 67 and Yāj. I. 97, but Medhātithi (on the same verse), the Mit. (on Yāj. I. 121), the Madanapārijāta (p. 231) and other works say that he should offer oblations in the ordinary fire and that there is no Vaivāhika fire for the śūdra. All persons including the śūdras and even cāṇḍālas were authorized to repeat the Rāmamantra of 13 letters (Śrī Rāma jaya Rāma jaya jaya Rāma) and the Śiva mantra of five letters (namaḥ śivāya), while dvijātis could repeat the Śiva mantra of six letters (Oṃ namaḥ śivāya). Vide Śūdra-kamalākara pp. 30-31, where passages of Varāha, Vāmana and Bhaviṣya Purāṇas are cited to show that śūdras are entitled to learn and repeat mantras of Viṣṇu from the Pañcarātra texts and of Śiva, the Sun, Śakti and Vināyaka. The Varāhapurāṇa (128. 22-31) describes the initiation (dīkṣā) of a śūdra as a devotee of Viṣṇu (as a bhāgavata).

The saṃskāras of śūdras

(3) As to {{Sanskaras|Saṃskāras}}, there is some apparent conflict among the authorities. Manu X. 126 says “The śūdra incurs no sin (by eating forbidden articles like onions and garlic), he is not fit for saṃskāras, he has no adhikāra for (authority to perform) dharma nor is he forbidden from performing dharma’ and in IV. 80 (which is the same as Vas. Dh. S. 18. 14 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 71. 48-52) we see ‘one should not give advice to a śūdra, nor give him leavings of food nor of sacrificial oblations, one [[159]] should not impart religious instruction to him nor ask him to perform vratas’. Laghuviṣṇu¹⁵² (I. 15) contains the dictum that the śūdra is devoid of any saṃskāra. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 262 explains the words of Manu IV. 80 about vratas in the case of śūdras as applicable only to those śūdras who are not in attendance upon members of the three higher castes and establishes that śūdras can perform vratas (but without homa and muttering of mantras). Aparārka on the same verse (Manu IV. 80) explains that the śūdra cannot perform vratas in person, but only through the medium of a brāhmaṇa. The Śūdrakamalākara (p. 38) holds that śūdras are entitled to perform vratas, fasts, mahādānas and prāyaścittas, but without homa and japa. Manu X. 127 allows religious śūdras to perform all religious acts which dvijātis perform, provided they do not use Vedic mantras. On the other hand Śaṅkha (as quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 13) opines that saṃskāras may be performed for śūdras but without Vedic mantras. Yama quoted in Sm. C. (I. p. 14) says the same. Veda-Vyāsa (I. 17) prescribes that ten saṃskāras (viz. garbhādhāna, puṃsavana, sīmantonnayana, jātakarma, nāmakaraṇa, niṣkramaṇa, annaprāśana, caula, karṇavedha and vivāha) can be performed in the case of śūdras, but without Vedic mantras. Hāradatta (on Gautama X. 51) quotes a gṛhyakāra to the effect that even in the case of the śūdra the rites of niṣeka, puṃsavana, sīmantonnayana, jātakarma, nāmakaraṇa, annaprāśana and caula are allowed but without Vedic mantras. When Manu prescribes (II. 32) that the śūdra should be given a name connected with service, he indicates that the śūdra could perform the ceremony of nāmakaraṇa. So when Manu (IV. 80) states that he deserves no saṃskāra, what he means is that no saṃskāra with Vedic mantras was to be performed in his case. Medhātithi 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 can be given. Vide Śūdrakamalākara p. 47 for several views about the saṃskāras allowed to śūdras.

(4) Liability to higher punishment for certain offences. If a śūdra committed adultery with a woman of the three [[160]] higher castes, Gaut.¹⁵³ (XII. 1-2) prescribed the cutting off of his penis and forfeiture of all his property and if he was guilty of this offence when entrusted with the duty of protecting her, he was to suffer death in addition. Vaṣ. Dh. S. 21. 1. Manu VIII. 366 prescribes death in the case of a śūdra having intercourse with a brāhmaṇa 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 had intercourse with a kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra woman, who was not guarded, he was fined five hundred (Manu VIII. 385). Similarly in the case of Vākpāruṣya (slander and libel) if a śūdra reviled a brāhmaṇa he received corporal punishment or his tongue was cut off (Manu VIII. 270), but if a kṣatriya or vaiśya did so they were respectively fined 100 or 150 (Manu VIII. 267) and if a brāhmaṇa reviled a śūdra, the brāhmaṇa was fined only 12 (Manu VIII. 268) or nothing (acc. to Gaut. XII. 10). In the case of theft, however, the śūdra 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 śūdra was held to be impure for a month, while a brāhmaṇa had to observe a ten days’ period only. Vide above p. 153 (No. 15 among the privileges of brāhmaṇas).

Disabilities of śūdras

(6) A śūdra 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 brāhmaṇa as a judge. Manu (VIII. 20) further says that a king may appoint as his judge even a brāhmaṇa who is so by birth only (i.e. who does not perform the peculiar duties of brāhmaṇas), but never a śūdra. Kātyāyana (as quoted [[161]] in the Mit. on Yāj. I. 3) says that when a brāhmaṇa is not available (as a judge) the king may appoint as judge a kṣatriya or a vaiśya who is proficient in dharmaśāstra, but he should carefully avoid appointing a śūdra as judge.¹⁵⁴

(7) A brāhmaṇa was not allowed to receive gifts from a śūdra except under great restrictions. Vide above note 239.

(8) A brāhmaṇa could take¹⁵⁵ food at the houses of members of the three classes who performed the duties prescribed for them by the śāstras (according to Gaut.), but he could not take food from a śūdra except when the śūdra was his own cowherd, or tilled his field or was a hereditary friend of the family, or his own barber or his dāsa. Vide Gaut. XVII. 6 and Manu IV. 253 (=Viṣṇu Dh. S. 57. 16), Yāj. I. 166, Parāśara IX. 19. Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 16. 22 says¹⁵⁶ ’that food which is brought by an impure śūdra should not be eaten by a brāhmaṇa;’ 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 hygienic rules about paring nails, the cutting of hair. Manu IV. 211 forbade in general the food of a śūdra to a brāhmaṇa and by IV. 223 he laid down that a learned brāhmaṇa should not take cooked food from a śūdra who did not perform śrāddha and other daily rites (mahāyajñas) but that he may take from such a śūdra uncooked grain for one night, if he cannot get food from anywhere else. Baudh. Dh. S. (II. 2. 1) requires a brāhmaṇa to avoid the food of vṛṣalas (śūdras). Gradually rules about taking food from śūdras became stricter. The Śaṅkha-smṛti (13. 4) remarks that brāhmaṇas fattened on the food given by śūdras are paṅktidūṣaka. Parāśara¹⁵⁷ XI. 13 ordains that a brāhmaṇa may take from a śūdra ghee, oil, milk, molasses and food fried in oil or ghee, but should eat it on a river bank and not in the śūdra’s house and the Par. M. adds [[162]] (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 member of another class is available. Hāradatta on Gaut. XVII. 6 remarks that a brāhmaṇa could take food from a śūdra who was a cowherd &c. only in the case of very extreme calamities. Aparārka also (p. 244 on Yāj. I. 168) says the same. In the kalivarjya (actions forbidden in the kali age) the old practice of eating the food of cowherds, barber &c. was forbidden.¹⁵⁸

(9) The śūdra gradually came to be so much looked down upon that he could not touch a brāhmaṇa, though at one time he could be a cook in a brāhmaṇa household and a brāhmaṇa could eat food from his house. In the Anuśāsanaparva (59. 33) it is said¹⁵⁹ ‘a brāhmaṇa should be served by a śūdra from a distance like blazing fire while he may be waited upon by a kṣatriya or vaiśya after touching him.’ Aparārka (p. 1196) quotes two smṛti texts ‘a brāhmaṇa on touching a śūdra or niṣāda becomes pure by ācamana (ceremonial sipping of water); on touching persons lower than these, he becomes pure by bathing, prāṇāyāma and the strength of tapas; on seeing a ram, a 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 a śūdra cannot bathe then he may resort to sipping water, but if able he must take a bath or that on touching a sat-śūdra one may have recourse to ācamana and on touching an asat-śūdra one must take a bath. We find from the Gṛhyasūtras¹⁶⁰ that in Madhuparka offered to a snātaka the feet of the guest (even if he was a brāhmaṇa) were washed by a śūdra male or female. So there could have been no ban against a śūdra touching a brāhmaṇa then. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 3. 6. 9-10) says that two śūdras should wash the feet of a guest, according to some teachers (in the case of a householder who has several dāsas), while Āpastamba [[163]] himself says that one śūdra should wash the guest’s feet and another should sprinkle him with water.¹⁶¹

(10) As the śūdra could not be initiated into Vedic study, the only āśrama out of the four that he was entitled to was that of the householder. In the Anuśāsanaparva (165. 10) we read¹⁶² ‘I am a śūdra and so I have no right to resort to the four āśramas’. In the Śāntiparva¹⁶³ (63. 12-14) it is said, ‘in the case of a śūdra who performs service (of the higher classes), who has done his duty, who has raised offspring, who has only a short span of life left or is reduced to the 10th stage (i.e. is above 90 years of age), the fruits of all āśramas are laid down (as obtained by him) except of the fourth.’ Medhātithi on Manu VI. 97 explains these words as meaning that the śūdra by serving brāhmaṇas and procreating offspring as a householder acquires the merit of all āśramas except mokṣa which is the reward of the proper observance of the duties of the fourth āśrama.

(11) The life of a śūdra was esteemed rather low. Yāj. III. 236 and Manu XI. 66 include the killing of a woman, a śūdra, a vaiśya and a kṣatriya among upapātakas; but the prāyaścittas and gifts prescribed for killing these show that the life of the śūdra was not worth much. On killing a kṣatriya, the prāyaścitta prescribed was brahmacarya for six years, gift of 1000 cows and a bull; for killing a vaiśya, brahmacarya for three years and gift of 100 cows and a bull; for killing a śūdra brahmacarya for one year, gift of 10 cows and a bull. Gaut. XXII. 14-16, Manu XI. 128-130, Yāj. III. 266-267 say practically the same thing. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 9. 25. 14-I. 9. 26. 1) says that on killing a crow, a chameleon, a peacock, a cakravāka, flamingo, bhāsa, a frog, ichneumon, muskrat, a dog, a cow and draught ox the prāyaścitta is the same as that for killing a śūdra. Manu (XI. 131) says ‘on killing a cat, an ichneumon, [[164]] cāṣa, a frog, a dog, iguana, owl and crow, the prāyaścitta is the same as that for killing a śūdra.’¹⁶⁴

If the śūdra 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 śūdras became kings and Kauṭilya in his Arthaśāstra (IX. 2) speaks of armies of śūdras (vide note 266 above). The śūdra was free from the round of countless daily rites. He was compelled to undergo no saṃskāra (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 śūdras 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 Āryans and non-Āryans 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 vs. Narayan 25 Bom. L. R. 26 for such a case.