08 Āśramas

In the preceding pages several questions connected with brahmacarya have been dealt with. Brahmacarya is, according to the theory of the dharmasūtras and {{smśtis|smṛtis}}, the first of the four āśramas. Therefore, before proceeding to the next saṁskāra, viz. vivāha (marriage) which is the starting point of the second āśrama, it is necessary to discuss the origin and development of the idea of asramas.

From the times of the most ancient dharmasūtras the number of āśramas has been four, though there are slight differences in the nomenclature and in their sequence.¹ {{Ap. Dh, 8. II. 9.21. 1|Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 21. 1}} says ’there are four āśramas, viz. the stage of householder, (staying in) the teacher’s house, stage of being a muni, the stage of being a forest dweller.’ That here mauna stands for the āśrama of sannyāsa is clear from Āpastamba’s own words in II. 9. 21. 7 (atha parivrājaḥ) where he employs the word ‘parivrāj’ to indicate’ mauna, Āp. places the householder first among the {{āāramas|āśramas}}, probably on account of the importance of that stage to all other Āśramas. Why he should mention the stage of forest hermit last is not clear. Gaut. also (III, 2) enumerates the four āśramas as brahmacārī, gṛhastha, bhikṣu and vaikhānasa. Here also Gaut. speaks of bhikṣu before vaikhānasa and Haradatta² explains this departure from the usual sequence of āśramas as due to the words in Gaut. 28. 47 where we read ‘prāg-uttamāt traya {{āśramiñaḥ|āśramiṇaḥ}}’ (persons belonging to the three āśramas except the last may constitute a pariṣad), i. e. to exclude vaikhānasa from the pariṣad he is mentioned last. Why the vānaprastha is called vaikhānasa will be discussed later on under the former word. {{Vas. Dh. 8.|Vas. Dh. S.}} (VII. 1-2) names the four āśramas as {{brahmaoāri|brahmacārī}}, gṛhastha, vānaprastha and parivrājaka.

[]

Vas. Dh. S. (in XI. 34) employs the word yati to denote a person in the fourth āśrama. {{Baud. Db.S.|Baud. Dh. S.}} (II. 6. 17) names the four āśramas in the same way as Vasiṣṭha and vouchsafes the interesting information that it was the {{asuru|asura}} Kapila, son of {{Prablāda|Prahlāda}}, who in his rivalry with the gods, made these distinctions to which a wise man should pay no heed. {{Wlist|Whilst}} Baud.³ means appears to be that there is really one āśrama viz. that of the householder, that Kapila devised the scheme of four āśramas, so that those who become vānaprasthas and parivrājakas would perform no yajñas and thereby the gods would lose the offerings they received from men and become less powerful. Manu VI. 87 speaks of the four āśramas, the last being called yati by him and also ‘saṁnyāsa’ (in VI. 96). It would thus be seen that a person who belongs to the last āśrama is variously called parivrāt or parivrājaka (one who does not stay in one place but wanders from place to place), bhikṣu (one who begs for his livelihood), muni (one who ponders over the mysteries of life and death), yati (one who controls his senses). These words suggest the various characteristics of the man who undertakes the fourth āśrama.

The theory of Manu about these āśramas is as follows. The span of human life is one hundred years (śatāyur vai puruṣaḥ). All do not live to that age, but that is the maximum age one can expect to reach. This should be divided into four parts. As one cannot know beforehand what age one is going to reach, it is not to be supposed that these four parts are each of 25 years. They may be more or less. As stated in Manu IV, 1 the first part of man’s life is brahmacarya in which he learns at his teacher’s house and after he has finished his study, in the second part of his life he marries and becomes an householder, discharges his debts to his ancestors by begetting sons and to the gods by performing yajñas (Manu V. 169). When he sees that his head has grey hair and that there are wrinkles on his body he resorts to the forest i. e. becomes a Vānaprastha (Manu VI. 1-2). After spending the third part of his life in the forest for some time he spends the rest of his life as a {{samnyāsins|saṁnyāsins}} (Manu VI. 33).⁴ Similar rules are found [] in many other {{smartis|smṛtis}}.⁵ Baud. (Dh. S. II. 10. 5) ⁶ states as his own opinion that the sages prescribe saṁnyāsa after the 70th year.

The word āśrama does not occur in the {{Sambitās|Saṁhitās}} or {{Brāb. maṇas|Brāhmaṇas}}. But this cannot be stretched to mean that the stages of life denoted by this word in the sūtras were unknown throughout the Vedic period. It has been shown above (p. 268) that the word {{brabmacarl|brahmacārī}} occurs in the {{Rgveda|Ṛgveda}} and the {{Atharva veda|Atharvaveda}} and that brahmacarya is mentioned in the {{Tai. S.|Tai. Saṁ.}}, the {{Sat. Br.|Śat. Br.}} and other ancient Vedic works. So the stage of brahmacarya was well known in the remotest past. The fact that Agni is said to be ’the {{gļhapati|gṛhapati}} in our house (Ṛg. II. 1. 2)⁷ and the fact that in the famous verse (Ṛg. X. 85. 36) which is employed even today in the marriage ceremony the husband says to the bride when taking hold of her hand that the gods gave her to him for {{gārbapatya|gārhapatya}} (for attaining the position of a house-owner or householder) establish that the second stage of the householder was well-known to the {{Rgveda|Ṛgveda}}. There is nothing in the Vedic Literature expressly corresponding to the vānaprastha. It may however be stated that the {{Tāṇdya Mahabrāhniana|Tāṇḍya Mahābrāhmaṇa}} 14. 4. 7 says that vaikhānasa sages were the favourites of Indra and that one {{Rahasya Devamalimluc|Rahasya Devamālimluc}} killed them in a place called Munimaraṇa. Vaikhānasa means ‘vānaprastha’ in the sūtras and it is possible that this is the germ of the idea of {{vāda prastha|vānaprastha}}. ‘Yati’ used in the sūtras and smṛtis to indicate the fourth āśrama of {{samnyaga|saṁnyāsa}} does occur in the oldest Vedic texts. But there the meaning appears to be different. In the {{Rg.|Ṛg.}} the word ‘yati’ occurs several times. But the sense is doubtful. Ṛg. VIII. 3. 9 runs ‘whereby when wealth was bestowed on Bhṛgu and on yatis (or ‘on Bhṛgu from yatis’) you protected Praskaṇva’.⁸ Ṛg. VIII. 6. 18 reads ‘O Indra, the yatis and those who were Bhṛgus praised thee’; Ṛg. X. 72. 7 says ‘O gods, [] when you filled the worlds as the yatis (did) you brought the sun hidden in the sea’.

Āśramas - Meaning of Yati

In the {{Tai.”’ S.|Tai. Saṁ.}} VI. 2. 7. 5 we read ‘Indra threw yatis to the {{salāvṛkas|sālāvṛkas}} (hyaenas or wolves), they devoured them to the south of the Uttaravedi.’ The same words and story occur in the {{Kathaka sambitā|Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā}} VIII. 5, the {{Ait. Br.|Ait. Br.}} 35. 2 (prādat) and the {{Kauṣitaki Up.|Kauṣītakī Up.}} III. 1; in the last Indra said to Pratardana ‘do know me only; I regard this as the most beneficial thing to man that he should know me. I killed the three-headed Tvāṣṭra. I gave to the {{sālāvśkas|sālāvṛkas}} the {{Arunmukha|Aruṇmukha}} yatis.’ In the {{Kathaka samhita|Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā}} (IV. 10) and the {{Tai. S.|Tai. Saṁ.}} II. 4. 9. 2 it is stated that the heads of the yatis when they were being devoured fell aside and they (the heads) became the {{kharjūras|kharjūras}} (date palms).⁹ Atharvaveda II. 5. 3. says ‘Indra, who is quick in his attack, who is Mitra and who killed Vṛtra as he did the yatis.’ In the {{Tāndya Mahābrahmana|Tāṇḍya Mahābrāhmaṇa}} VIII. 1. 4 {{Bṛhadgiri|Bṛhadgiri}} is said to be one of the three yatis who escaped from slaughter and who were then taken under his protection by Indra. All these passages taken together suggest that the yatis were people who had incurred the hostility of Indra, the patron of the Āryas, that they were slaughtered by the Āryas with the help of Indra and their bodies were thrown to the wolves and that they seem to have something to do with a country where the date palm grew and that a few of them who escaped slaughter subsequently were won over and became the worshippers of Indra (and therefore in Ṛg. VIII. 6. 18 they are described as praising Indra). So originally they were probably beyond the pale of the Vedic Āryans. If there is any connection {{betwoen|between}} yati and yātu (sorcery) which seems possible, the yatis were probably non-Vedic sorcerers.

In the {{Rg. X, 136. 2|Ṛg. X. 136. 2}}, there is a {{references|reference}} to munis, who are wind-girt and who put on brownish dirt (dirty garments).¹⁰ In {{Rg. VIII. 17. 14|Ṛg. VIII. 17. 14}} Indra is said to be the friend of munis (Indro munināṁ {{saklā|sakhā}}) and in {{Rg. X. 136. 4|Ṛg. X. 136. 4}} muni is said to be the friend of all gods. So it appears that even in the times of the Ṛgveda persons [] who led a life of poverty, contemplation and mortification were known, and were honoured and called munis, while persons corresponding to them among non-Vedic people were probably called yatis. But in both these words there is no idea of a certain stage in a well-knit scheme of life. Perhaps the earliest reference to the four āśramas, though somewhat obscure, occurs in the {{Ait. Br.|Ait. Br.}} 33. 11 ‘what (use is there) of dirt, what use of antelope skin, what use of (growing) the beard, what is the use of tapas? O! brāhmaṇas I desire a son, he is a world that is to be highly praised.’¹¹ Here it is clear that ajina refers to brahmacarya, śmaśrūṇi to vānaprasthas (since according to Manu VI. 6 and Gaut. III. 33 the {{vānaprestha|vānaprastha}} had to grow his hair, beard and nails). Therefore ‘malam’ and ’tapas’ must be taken respectively as indicating the householder and the {{sainnyāsin|saṁnyāsin}}. A much {{olearer|clearer}} reference to three āśramas occurs in the {{Chandogya’s Up.|Chāndogya Up.}} II. 23. 1 ’there are three branches of dharma, the first (is constituted by) sacrifice, study and charity (i. e. by the stage of householder), the second is (constituted by the performance of) tapas (i. e. the vānaprastha), the third is the {{brahmacārl|brahmacārī}} staying in the house of his teacher and wearing himself out till death in the teacher’s house; all these attain to the worlds of the meritorious; but one who (has correctly understood brahma) and abides in it attains immortality’.¹² Tapas is a characteristic of both vānaprastha and parivrājaka. Therefore in this passage it is possible to hold that the three āśramas (of student, householder and vānaprastha) are mentioned. The last clause about ‘{{brahmasaṁstha|brahmasaṁstha}}’ differentiates the three āśramas from him who has knowledge [] of {{brahma|brahma}} and holds fast by it. That portion says that the consequence of the knowledge of brahma is immortality; but it does not say expressly or impliedly that the stage of parivrājaka is a means of attaining the knowledge of brahma. So one may doubt whether {{samnyaga|saṁnyāsa}} as an āśrama is spoken of here, but there can be no doubt that the other three are clearly {{indioated|indicated}} here. Probably in the time of the Chāndogya there was no clear line of demarcation between the āśramas of vānaprastha and {{earnyāsa|saṁnyāsa}} and they rather coalesced into each other. {{Chān. Up. V, 10.1|Chā. Up. V. 10. 1}} and {{Br. Up. VI. 2. 15|Bṛ. Up. VI. 2. 15}} support this {{conclusion¹³}}. In the {{Br. Up. III. 5. 1|Bṛ. Up. III. 5. 1}} there is a reference to {{brābmapas|brāhmaṇas}} who on apprehending correctly the {{Suprema Spirit|Supreme Spirit}} turn away from the desires of progeny, wealth and of securing holy worlds and practise begging. Begging is a characteristic of saṁnyāsa in the sūtras. {{Yājña valkya|Yājñavalkya}} in the {{Bṛ. Up. IV.5. 2.|Bṛ. Up. IV. 5. 2.}} tells his wife {{Maitreys|Maitreyī}} that he was going into a life of {{prairajyā|pravrajyā}} from being a householder. {{Mundaka Up. I. %. 11|Muṇḍaka Up. I. 2. 11}} refers to begging for him who has knowledge of brahma and {{Mundaka III. 2. 6|Muṇḍaka III. 2. 6}} mentions ‘{{gamnyāsa|saṁnyāsa}}’. In the {{Jabalopaniṣad¹⁴ (4)}} it is said that Janaka asked {{Yājña. valkya|Yājñavalkya}} to expound {{sainnyāsa|saṁnyāsa}} and then the four āśramas are distinctly set out ‘after finishing the stage of student-hood, one should become a householder; after {{becoining|becoming}} a householder one should become a forest-dweller, after being a forest-dweller, one should renounce the world; or he may do otherwise viz. he may renounce the world after the stage of student-hood itself or after being an householder or from the forest. The very day on which he {{becoines|becomes}} desireless, he should renounce the world (become a {{saṁnyasin|saṁnyāsin}}). Probably this {{passage¹⁵}} was not [] before the author of the Vedāntasūtra or he did not regard the Jābālopaniṣad as very authoritative; {{itherwise|otherwise}} there would hardly have been any need for the {{Vedāntabūtrakāra|Vedāntasūtrakāra}} (in the Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 18-20) to hold a discussion on Chāndogya II. 23. 1.

It is clear that in the {{tiines|times}} of the earliest {{Upanisade|Upaniṣads}} at least three (if not four) āśramas were known and that all four were known by their specific names to the Jābālopaniṣad. In the {{Svetaśyataropaniṣad|Śvetāśvataropaniṣad}} (VI. 21) we have the word ‘{{atyāśramibhyah|atyāśramibhyaḥ}}’. It is said there that the sage Śvetāśvatara, who acquired knowledge of Brahma, proclaimed the knowledge to those who had risen above the mere observances of āśramas.

No scholar Eastern or Western places {{Pānini|Pāṇini}} later than 300 B. C. He knew Bhikṣu-sūtras composed by Pārāśarya and {{Karnanda|Karmanda}}¹⁶ and he tells us that the word ‘{{maskarin|maskarin}}’¹⁷ means parivrājaka. As sūtra works about ‘bhikṣus’ were composed before Pāṇini, this āśrama of bhikṣus must have been an established institution centuries before Pāṇini. Buddhism took over this mode of life ({{pabbrijjū|pabbajjā}} as the Pali works say) from the brahmanical system.

It has been already stated at p. 8 that the goals of existence were deemed to be four, viz dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa. The highest goal was mokṣa. All ancient Indian philosophy (whether Vedānta, Sāṁkhya or Nyāya) held that liberation from the never-ending cycle of births and deaths, and escape from the three kinds of duḥkha were the highest good. The {{gummum bonum|summum bonum}} consisted in non-return ({{anavșttih|anāvṛttiḥ}}) to the world of pleasures and sorrows. The {{Chan. Up.¹⁸ VIII.|Chā. Up.¹⁸ VIII.}} 15. 1 winds up with the words and he does not return’. The {{Br. Up.|Bṛ. Up.}} VI. 2. 15, {{Praśna Up.|Praśna Up.}} I. 10 and others say the same. This supreme goal had fascinated all noble minds in whatever sphere of life they might have been working. The greatest {{poot|poet}} and dramatist of classical Sanskrit ends his most famous drama (the {{Sākuntala|Śākuntala}}) with the prayer may self-existent God Śiva destroy for me rebirth.¹⁹ This state of liberation or release is variously called mokṣa or mukti, {{amptatva|amṛtatva}}, {{nihāreyasa|niḥśreyasa}}, [] kaivalya (by the {{Saṅkhyas|Sāṅkhyas}}) or apavarga (Nyāyasūtra I. 1. 2). For attaining this state man must know and realize that there is only one Reality underlying all existence (and no plurality) and become disgusted with the passions and temptations of the world i. e. he must have nirveda and vairāgya (as stated in the {{Bș, Up.|Bṛ. Up.}} III. 5. 1 or {{Mundaka|Muṇḍaka}} I. 2. 12). Merely reading from the books that desirelessness is necessary for release and immediately giving up the world would not serve the purpose. The man would be hankering, as the {{Bhagavadgitā|Bhagavadgītā}} says, after pleasures he has renounced. Therefore the {{anoient|ancient}} Indian writers devised according to their lights a {{schemo|scheme}} which is embodied in the theory and practice of the āśramas. In {{brahma carya|brahmacarya}} the individual goes through the discipline of the will and the emotions, makes himself acquainted with the literary treasures of the past and learns obedience, respect, plain living and high thinking. Then he marries, becomes a householder, tastes the pleasures of the world, enjoys life, has {{gone|sons}}, discharges his duties to his children, to his friends, relatives and neighbours and becomes a useful, industrious and worthy {{oitizon|citizen}}, the founder of a family. It is supposed that by the time he is fifty years or so he has become convinced of the futility of human appetites and the pleasures of the world and is, therefore, called upon to resort to a forest life for pondering over the great problem of the life hereafter and to accustom himself to self-abnegation, austerities and a {{barınless|harmless}} life. This would lead on to the last stage, viz. {{samnyāse|saṁnyāsa}}. He may succeed in this very life in realizing the supreme goal of mokṣa or he may have to continue to rise in spiritual height until after several births and deaths the goal is in view. The theory of varṇa dealt with man as a member of the Āryan society and laid down what his rights, functions, privileges, responsibilities and duties were as a {{meniber|member}} of that society. It was addressed to man in the mass. The theory of {{agramas|āśramas}} addressed itself to the individual. It tells him what his spiritual goal is, {{low|how}} he is to order his life and what preparations are required to attain that goal. The theory of āśramas was truly a sublime conception and if owing to the exigencies of the times, the conflicts of interests and distractions of life, the scheme could not even in {{anoient|ancient}} times be carried out fully by every individual and seems to have failed in modern times, the fault does not {{lfe|lie}} with the originators of this conception. Deussen was constrained to say (in E. R. E. under āśrama) ‘how far the practice corresponded to this theory given in [] Manu and other law books, we do not know; but we are free to confess that in our opinion the whole history of mankind has not much that equals the grandeur of this thought’ and again in ‘The Philosophy of the Upaniṣads’ (tr. by Geden, 1906) p. 367 ’the entire history of mankind does not produce much that approaches in grandeur to this thought’.

The three āśramas of householder, forest hermit and {{sam nyāga|saṁnyāsa}} will be dealt with in detail hereafter. Only one question about āśramas in general remains to be discussed. With reference to the four āśramas, there are three different points of view (pakṣas) viz. samuccaya (orderly co-ordination), vikalpa (option) and {{bādha|bādha}} (annulment or contradiction). Those who hold the first view (samuccaya) say that a person can resort to the four āśramas one after another in order and that he cannot drop any one or more and pass on to the next nor can he resort to the householder’s life after becoming a saṁnyāsin (vide Dakṣa I. 8-9, Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 40) e. g. a man cannot take {{Baṁnyāsa|saṁnyāsa}} immediately after brahmacarya. Manu (IV. 1, VI. 1. 33-37, 87-88) is the prime supporter of this view. The first part of the Jābālopaniṣad quoted above refers to this view. This view does not regard marriage and sexual life as impure or inferior to asceticism and on the contrary places it on a higher plane than asceticism. On the whole the tendency of most of the dharmaśāstra works is to glorify the status of an house-holder and push into the background the two āśramas of vānaprastha and {{sainyāsa|saṁnyāsa}}, so much so that certain works say that these are forbidden in the Kali age. The second view is that there is an option after brahmacarya i. e. a man may become a {{paritrājaka inimediately|parivrājaka immediately}} after he finishes his study or immediately after the householder’s way of life. This view is put forward by the Jābālopaniṣad as an alternative to the first view of samuccaya. This is the view also of Vasiṣṭha VII. 3, Laghu Viṣṇu III. 1, and Yāj. III. 56. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 9. 21. 7-8 and II. 9. 22. 7-8) seems to favour this view. The third view of {{bādha|bādha}} is held by the ancient dharmasūtras of Gautama²⁰ and {{Baudbāyana|Baudhāyana}}. They hold that there is really one āśrama viz. that of the householder (brahmacarya being only preparatory to it) and that the other āśramas are inferior to that of the householder. Vide Gautama (III. 1 and 35) where he first [] refers to the view about vikalpa (option) and emphatically says that there is only one āśrama. Manu VI. 89-90, III. 77-80, Vas. Dh. S. VIII. 14-17, Dakṣa II. 57-60, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 59. 29 and many others praise the āśrama of householder as the highest. {{Baud. Dh. S.|Baud. Dh. S.}} (II. 6. 29 ff) says the same as Gautama and it {{relies²¹}} upon the fact that the āśramas other than that of householder do not beget offspring and quotes Vedic passages viz. ‘may we, O {{Agai|Agni}}, attain immortality through progeny’ ({{Rg.|Ṛg.}} V. 4. 10 = {{Tai. 8.|Tai. Saṁ.}} I. 4. 46. 1) and ‘a brāhmaṇa when born is born involved in three debts, viz. he owes brahmacarya to the sages, sacrifice to the gods, and progeny to {{pitrs|pitṛs}}’ (Tai. Saṁ. VI. 3. 10. 5). According to {{Brahmasūtra|Brahmasūtra}} III. 4. 18 Jaimini held this view, while {{Bādarāyana|Bādarāyaṇa}} seems to have been of the opinion that all āśramas are enjoined (ibid. III, 4. 19-20). Those who hold this view ({{bādha|bādha}}) rely on such Vedic passages²² as ‘one should offer agnihotra as long as life lasts’ or ‘indeed Agnihotra is a satra (sacrificial session) that lasts till one dies by old age’ (Śat. Br. XII. 4. 1. 1), ‘one should desire to live a hundred years performing religious acts’ ({{Vāj. S.|Vāj. Saṁ.}} 40, 2), ‘after bringing to the teacher wealth desired by him, do not cut off the thread of progeny’ ({{Tai. Up.|Tai. Up.}} I. 11. 1). The {{Mit.|Mitākṣarā}} on {{Yāj.|Yāj.}} III. 56 sets out these three views and says that each is supported by Vedic texts and one may follow any one of the three. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 9. 21, 2) held the view that whatever āśrama out of the four one followed, one attained happiness if one performed its duties according to the {{śāstra|śāstra}} and after a lengthy discussion Āp. arrives at the conclusion that there is no distinction due to superiority among the four āśramas.²³ There were some who thought that the {{houscholder’s|householder’s}} life was the rule and the other āśramas were for the blind and other incapable persons. The {{Mit.|Mitākṣarā}} on {{Yāj. III. 56|Yāj. III. 56}} refutes this view.

The word āśrama is {{derived²⁴}} from ‘śram’ to exert, to labour and etymologically means ‘a stage in which one exerts oneself’. [] Commentators like Sarvajña-Nārāyaṇa on Manu VI. 35 endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the three views set out above as follows: the view that a man may pass on to sannyāsa immediately after the period of student-hood (without being a householder) applies only to those men who are, owing to the impressions and {{effeots|effects}} of restrained conduct in past lives, entirely free from desires and whose tongue, sexual appetites, belly and words are thoroughly under control; the prescriptions of Manu enjoining on men not to resort to {{sarny āga|saṁnyāsa}} without paying off the three debts are concerned with men whose appetites have not yet thoroughly been brought under control and the words of Gautama that there is only one āśrama (that of the house-holder) relate only to those whose appetites for worldly pleasures and pursuits are quite keen.