CHAPTER XXXIV

KALIVARJYA

(ACTIONS FORBIDDEN IN THE KALI AGE)

It has been stated above (pp. 865-866) that one of the several ways in which the conflict between several smṛti texts was got over was to hold some of them as legislating for a bygone age (yugāntara). For example, when Hārīta allowed upanayana to women, both the Sm. C. (1. 24) and Par. M. (1. 2. p. 83) hold that the text refers to another kalpa (aeon). In H. of Dh. vol. II. (on pp. 151, 162, 424, 451, 603, 612, 620, 750, 790, 796, 928, 929, 934, 953, 1005 n, 1201 n) reference has been made to several matters forbidden in the Kali age. It is remarkable in this connection to note that, though the Parāśarasmṛti (in I. 24) claims par excellence to lay down the dharmas for the Kali age, several important provisions contained in it, viz. the remarriage of a married woman ¹ (Parāśara IV. 30), the variation in the period of impurity due to births and deaths depending on the learning and character of a brāhmaṇa (Parāśara II. 5-6), permission for a brāhmaṇa to partake of the food of five classes among śūdras (XI. 21) are included among Kalivarjyas by the Adityapurāṇa (as quoted by writers of the 12th and later centuries). It is necessary, therefore, to investigate into the origin and development of the Yuga theory and of the topic of Kalivarjya.

From the Mahabharata (Santi 59), Manu (1. 81), Nārada (I. 1-2), Bṛhaspati and the Purāṇas it is clear that they all believed in the existence of an ideally perfect community in the dim past followed by gradual degeneracy and decline in morals, health and length of life. But they also believed that a cycle of decline would be followed in the far distant future [[P886]] by another of moral perfection. The only pity is that all works that are extant think that they are in the midst of a very sinful age and there is not a single work which thinks that the era of perfection may dawn in the very near future.

The germ of the theory of progressive deterioration in morals is found even in the Rgveda. In the famous dialogue of Yama and Yami the former exclaims in one place ² (Rg. X. 10. 10) ’those later ages are yet to come when sisters would do what is not sister-like’. The word ‘yuga’ occurs at least 33 times in the Rg., but the exact meaning is somewhat doubtful. In a few places it means ‘yoke’ (Rg. X. 60. 8, X. 101. 3 and 4). In several places it appears to stand for a very brief period of time (e.g. Rg. III. 26. 3). Generally it means ‘a generation’ (as in Rg. I. 92. 11, I. 103. 4, I. 124. 2, II. 2. 2, III. 33. 8, V. 52. 4). In Rg. I. 158. 6 ‘dirghatamā māmateyo jujurvān dasame yuge’ yuga probably means ‘a period of four or five years’, while in Rg. VI. 15. 8, VI. 8. 5, X. 72. 2, X. 94. 12, X. 97. 1 it should mean ³ ‘a long period of time’. In the Atharvaveda VIII. 2. 21 yuga appears to mean a period of several thousand years, two yugas being indicated as longer than 10000 years (satam te’syutam hāyanān dve yuge tiṇi catvāri krnmah). Here there is a clear reference to four yugas and to the fact that ‘yuga’ meant a very long period of time. Whatever be the meaning of the word in each passage, the Rgveda does not contain the names of all the four well-known yugas viz. Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali. The word “Kṛta’ when used in the Rgveda appears to mean ’the best throw of dice or of the seeds of vibhitaka in gambling’ (X. 34. 6, X. 43. 5). In the Atharvaveda VII. 52. 4, 5, 6 kṛta has the same meaning. Kali is the name of the author of Rg. VIII. 66 and in verse 15

of that hymn we read ‘kalayo mā bibhitana’ (O descendants of Kali! do not be afraid). In Rg. X. 39. 8 the Asvins are said to have rejuvenated Kali who had become old. Vide also Rg. I. 112. 15 (where Kali is said to have got a wife from Aśvins). But Kali as a throw of dice does not occur in the Rgveda. In the Atharvaveda VII. 114. 1 Kali ⁴ means a throw of dice. The words kṛta, tretā, dvāpara and āskanda occur in the Tai. S. IV. 3. 3, Vāj. S. 30. 18 ⁵ and in the Śat. Br. XIII. 6. 2. 9-10 (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 416). In later literature Kali is also called Tiṣya (as in Bhīṣmaparva 10. 3). In the Tai. Br. III. 4. 16 the word Kali is used ⁶ in place of Askanda. In all the above places Kṛta and the other three words denote throws in gambling, Kṛta being the most lucky and Kali being the most unlucky. In another passage of the Tai. ⁷ Br. (1. 5. 11) we read ’the four stomas (Trivṛt, Pañcadaśa, Saptadaśa and Ekaviṃśa) are Kṛta and the five are Kali; therefore the catustoma (should be performed in the Jyotiṣṭoma).’ This shows that Kṛta meant a throw of four or any multiple of four and Kali a throw which when divided by four left one as remainder. The Aitareya Br. employs the words Kṛta ⁸ and the other three in a metaphorical sense as representing progressively more desirable states of human activity, ‘one lying down becomes Kali, when about to leave the bed he becomes Dvāpara, when rising he becomes Tretā, and when he moves about he [[P887]] becomes Kṛta’.

The Śat. Br. V. 4. 4. 6 speaks of Kali ⁹ as ‘abhibhū’ (the vanquisher) and suggests that Kali is a throw of five that vanquishes all others. In the Chān. Up. IV. 1. 4 it is said ‘as (in a game ¹⁰ of dice) all the lower throws are included in the Kṛta throw which becomes victorious, so to him (to Raikva) comes (the merit of all the good acts that people do)’. Here Śaṅkara explains that Kṛta is a throw of dice having four marks, while other throws that have three, two or one mark are called Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali respectively. The Muṇḍaka Up. I. 2. 1 refers to Tretā ¹¹. ‘This is the truth; the sacrificial rites which the sages saw in the mantras (i. e. as prescribed in the hymns of the Rgveda and other Vedas) have been performed in many ways in the Tretā’. This last word is explained by Śaṅkarācārya in two ways, first as referring to the threefold priestly duties (of hotṛ, adhvaryu and udgātṛ) which are based on the three Vedas and alternatively as referring to the Tretā age. From this resume it appears that even up to the times of the latest period of Vedic literature (i.e. Upaniṣads) the words Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali were used in the sense of throws of dice in gambling and that it is very doubtful whether they were used in the sense of different ages of the world. Even in the Mahabharata Kṛta ¹² and Dvāpara are used also in the sense of throws of dice (vide Virāṭa 50. 24). In the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa (I. 28) there is a reference to the beginning of the Dvāpara age.

Even in the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa ¹³ (of Rg.) the word yuga is used in the sense of a period of five years (pañcasamvatsaramayar [[P888]] yugādhyakṣaṃ prajāpatim). The ancient Pitāmahasiddhānta which is not now extant, stated, according to the Pañcasiddhāntikā of Varāhamihira (XII. 1), that yuga means five years of the Sun and the Moon (raviśasinoḥ pañca ‘yugaṃ varṣāṇi Pitāmahopadiṣṭāni). This sense of the word is still found in the Sabhāparva 11. 38.

The Nirukta (I. 20) distinguishes between ancient sages and those of later days in the words, ¹⁴ ’the (ancient) sages had an intuitive perception of dharma and they imparted the Vedic mantras by instruction to later (sages) who had no intuitive perception of dharma’. But it does not mention or refer to any theory of four yugas. Both Gaut. I. 3-4 and Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 7-9 give expression to the view that among sages of old transgressions of dharma and violent actions are observed, but that on account of their distinguished spiritual greatness they incurred no sin, while a person of later days, being weak in spiritual merit, should not imitate them, otherwise he would come to grief. Here a distinction is drawn between very ancient sages and later sages as regards the endowment of spiritual merit, but nothing is said about the names or the theory of the four yugas. Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 5. 4 further says ¹⁵ that sages are not born among men of later days (avareṣu) on account of the transgressions of religious ordinances (prevalent in later ages). Therefore, it would not be quite wrong to assume that the theory had not been fully developed even in the times of the early dharmasutras of Gaut. and Ap. even though both held that they were living in an age of decline and that sages coming after the authors of the mantras were inferior.

Here epigraphic evidence affords some help in fixing the lower limit of the period when the theory of yugas must have been developed.

In the Rock Edicts of Asoka No. 4 and No. 5 we have at Kalsi and two other places the words ‘āva kapam’ (yāvat kalpam) and at Girnar the words ‘ava samvata kapa’ which mean ‘up to the end of the kalpa’ or ‘up to the end of the kalpa when the clouds or fires of destruction called samvarta [[P889]] will arise’ ¹⁶. Vide C. I. I vol. I. pp. 8, 10, 30-33. This indicates that the idea of a kalpa (a vast period of time at the end of which the universe would be dissolved) which is part of the theory of the yugas had been developed in the 3rd century B. C. The Junāgadh Inscription of Rudradāman ¹⁷ (150 A.D.) refers to ‘wind the velocity of which was as terrible as that at the end of the yuga’. In certain very early inscriptions of Pallava ¹⁸ kings (of about the 3rd or 4th century A. D.) they are described as ‘always ready to extricate dharma that had sunk deep owing to the evil effects of the Kali age’. In one of the Gupta Inscriptions dated in the 96th year of the Gupta era (415-16 A. D.) Dhruvaśarman is praised as following the path of righteous conduct which prevailed in Kṛtayuga, ¹⁹ while the Chammak copperplate of the Vākātaka emperor Pravarasena II also speaks of Kṛtayuga (Gupta Inscriptions No. 55 p. 237 at p. 240). The Talguṇḍa inscription of the early Kadamba king Kākusthavarman refers to Kaliyuga (E. I, vol. VIII p. 34). It is not necessary to adduce passages from inscriptions of a later date. From the above it may be said that the theory of yugas and kalpas had begun to take shape at least in the 4th or 3rd century B. C. and that in the first centuries of the Christian era it had been fully developed. It must have gone through several stages in the course of its development. For example, Brahmagupta (Brāhmasphuṭa-siddhānta XI. 10) states that the theory of yugas, Manus and kalpas set out by Aryabhata was not like that of the smṛtis.

The same conclusion is arrived at from a consideration of the classical Sanskrit literature. The theory of yugas and manvantaras as detailed in the Mahābhārata (Vanaparva chapters 149, 188, Santi chapters 69, 231-232), Manu chap. I, Viṣṇu dharma-sūtra XX. 1-21, the Purāṇas (such as Viṣṇu I. 3, VI. 3, Mārkaṇḍeya 46, Brahma 229-230, Matsya 142-144) and astronomical writers from Brahmagupta is briefly as follows: Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali comprise together with the period [[P890]] called sandhyā (that precedes each yuga) and the period called sandhyāṃśa (that follows each yuga) 12000 years, i. e. Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali extend respectively over 4000, 3000, 2000, 1000 years and sandhya and sandhyāṃśa of these four extend over 400, 300, 200 and 100 years each (i. e. the sandhyā of Kṛta is 400 years and the sandhyāṃśa of Kṛta is 400 years and so on). But these are divine years. Each divine year is equal to 360 human years. Therefore we have to multiply 12000 by 360 to arrive at the number of human years in the four yugas (i. e. the figure is 4320000). The Kṛtayuga with its sandhyā and sandhyāṃśa comes to 1728000 human years, Tretā to 1296000, Dvāpara to 864000 and Kali to 432000. These four yugas are together called sometimes caturyuga (Manu I. 71) or simply yuga also (Vanaparva 188. 27, Santi 232. 29); 1000 of these four yugas constitute a day of Brahmā, which is called Kalpa. The night of Brahmā is of the same duration. At the end of a kalpa the universe is resolved into Brahmā (and this is called pralaya) and at the end of Brahmā’s night the world is created again. In one day of Brahmā there are 14 Manus and therefore each Manvantara is equal to about 71 caturyugas (1000 divided by 14). The life of Brahmā is 100, out of which half is gone and therefore the present is said to be the 2nd or latter half (dvitiya parārdha) of the life of Brahmā and at present the kalpa that is running is called Vārāha. From the above it will be seen that, according to the Purāṇas, the universe has been created and dissolved many times and there have been numerous Manvantaras also (vide Manu I. 80). The four yugas in various ways differ in their characteristics. Kṛta is so called because it is an age in which everything is fulfilled by every one and nothing is left to be done ²⁰. The symbolic colours of the four yugas are respectively white, yellow, red and dark (Vanaparva 189. 32). In Kṛta, Dharma prevails in all its perfection and it stands with all its four feet (dharma being figuratively spoken of as vṛṣa, ²¹ a bull, in Manu VIII. 16 and Vanaparva 190. 9) and it declines or deteriorates by a quarter in each of the following yugas (Manu I. 81-82, Śānti 232. 23–24), so that in Kali only one quarter (or one foot) of dharma remains and adharma occupies three quarters. In Kṛta people are entirely free from diseases, secure all that [[P891]] they desire and the length of human life is four hundred years, all of which decline by one quarter successively in the following three yugas (Manu I. 83 = Śānti 232. 25). The dharmas in each of the four yugas are different; tapas was the highest in Kṛta, philosophic knowledge in Tretā, sacrifice in Dvāpara and charity alone in Kali (Manu I. 85-86 = Parāśara I. 22-23, Śānti 232. 27-28). Manu I. 85, Śānti 232. 27 and 261. 8, Parāśara I. 22 all have the same verse stating that the dharmas prescribed for men in each yuga differ.

In Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali the dharmas (that should be observed) are respectively declared by Manu, Gautama, Śaṅkha-Likhita and Parāśara (Parāśara I. 24). In Kṛta there was a single varṇa but at the end of Kali almost all will be śūdras (Brahma 229. 52, Matsya 144. 78). Parāśara (I. 25-28) points out other characteristics of the four yugas, which need not be detailed here. Manu IX. 301 and 302, however, indicate that the yugas are not watertight parts of Time. It is the king who can by his conduct introduce the characteristics of one yuga into another. Medhātithi on Manu IX. 301 explains that the king should not be misled into thinking that Kali is a historical part of Time and that he (the king) cannot therefore be Kali or Kṛta, but that it is the king’s way of conducting himself that will produce the conditions of the several yugas among his people.

In Vanaparva 149. 11-38, Vāyu 32 and 57-58, Liṅga 39, Matsya 142-144, Garuḍa 223, Nāradapurāṇa (pūrvārdha 41) and in several other purāṇas there are descriptions of the nature of the four yugas, which are passed over here. But it is important to see how the Great Epic and the Purāṇas describe the nature of Kaliyuga. Vanaparva chap. 188 and 190, the Yugapurāṇa chapter of the Gargasamhitā (published in the J. B. O. R. S. vol. 14 pp. 400 ff, by K. P. Jayaswal), Harivaṃśa (Bhaviṣya chap. 3. 5 ff), the Brahmapurāṇa 229-230, Vāyu 58 and 99. 391, 428, Matsya 144. 32-47, Kūrma I. 30, Viṣṇu VI. 1-2, Bhāgavata XII. 2, Brahmāṇḍa II. 31, Nāradiya (Pūrvārdha 41, verses 21-88), Liṅga 40, Nṛsiṃha 54. 11-49 and several others present, often in identical verses, a very pessimistic, dismal and harrowing account of what will happen in the Kali age, One extract ²² taken from the Vanaparva (188) is added at the end by way of sample, of which a summary is given below. All men will generally be liars; in [[P892]] the Kali age substitutes will be invented for yajñas, gifts and vratas; brāhmaṇas will do actions prescribed as peculiar to śūdras and śūdras will be acquiring wealth (which is the peculiar privilege of vaiśyas) or they will maintain themselves by following the profession of arms; brāhmaṇas giving up the study of the Veda and the performance of sacrifices and devoid of the staff and deer skin will eat anything (i. e. will not observe rules about bhakṣyābhakṣya); brāhmaṇas will not engage in japa (muttering of Vedic mantras), while śūdras will be intent on japa; when the world will be turned topsy turvy, it will be the first indication of coming destruction; many mleccha kings will rule over the earth, who will be sinful, will issue false edicts and will be engaged in fruitless wrangling; there will be Andhras, Śakas, Pulindas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Bāhlīkas (from Balkh) and valiant Ābhīras (as rulers); no brāhmaṇa will maintain himself by pursuing his own dharma; kṣatriyas and vaiśyas will indulge in prohibited or bad activities; people will be short-lived, have little strength, their valour and prowess will be insignificant, their spirits will be low and their bodies diminutive and they will speak words that have very little truth; countries will be mostly untenanted and the spaces will be occupied by beasts and snakes; people will be engaged in dry discussions about brahma (they will have no realisation or experience of brahma), śūdras will employ the word ‘bhoḥ’ (in addressing others ²³ of higher classes) and brāhmaṇas will employ the word ārya (in addressing peoples other than brāhmaṇas); swarms of insects will abound; all perfumes will not smell as fragrant as before and fluids will lose their sweet taste; women will have numerous progeny, will be of short stature, devoid of character and good conduct and engage in sexual intercourse against the order of nature; countries will suffer pangs of hunger ²⁴, squares where four [[P893]] roads meet will be full of nautch girls, and women will give up their chastity; cows will yield little milk; trees will produce few flowers and fruits and will abound in crows; brāhmaṇas will receive gifts from kings that are guilty of brāhmaṇa murder and that falsely accuse others of grave sins; people in the various spaces will be dunned for alms by brāhmaṇas steeped in greed and ignorance, who falsely make a pretence of their being religious; householders afraid of the burden of taxation, guilty of thieving and subsisting on trade, will remain concealed under the false garb of ascetics; brāhmaṇas pretending to be brahmacārins will, through greed of wealth, fraudulently allow their nails and hair to grow; persons in the various stages of life, that observe false rules of conduct but are drunkards and indulge in incest, will desire mundane objects and the increase of flesh and blood; the āśramas (forest dwellings) will be full of various heretical opinions and will extol the merits of food provided by others (out of charity); Indra will not send down rain at the proper season and all seeds will not put forth proper growth; people will take delight in killing and will be impure and abundant will be the fruit of adharma; whoever will then be acting according to his dharma may be regarded as having a short time to live, since there will be no dharma whatever (in Kaliyuga); people will sell goods mostly with false weights and measures and traders will be full of many tricks; the righteous will wither away, the sinful will prosper; dharma will lose its strength and adharma will be powerful; those who follow dharma will have short lives and will be poor, while those who give up dharma will have long lives and will be prosperous; in the sporting grounds of cities people will be sinful (or adulterous) and people will enter into transactions by sinful means; people, that have saved a little, will be puffed up with the pride of the rich; people with whom wealth was deposited privately through trust will mostly be ready to deny the deposit, shamelessly saying “it was never so deposited;” the sporting grounds of towns and temples belonging to towns will be infested by beasts and birds that prey upon human beings; girls of seven or eight years will become pregnant and males of ten or twelve years old will have sons born to them; people will be bald headed in the 16th year and there will be quick decline in the length of the lives of men; young men whose lives will be short will act like old people and old people will have the habits of the young; women acting contrary to their duty [[P894]] will deceive worthy husbands, will be of bad character and will have intercourse with slaves and even beasts; wives of heroes will resort to other men and will be guilty of adultery even while their husbands are alive. ²⁵

The dates of the composition of the Purāṇas not being beyond controversy, it would be difficult to point to a particular period as the time when the full-fledged theory of the yugas was developed. But this much can be stated with certainty that by the 4th century A. D. at the latest the theory had been completely developed. Āryabhaṭa ²⁶ (in Kālakriyāpāda 10) states that ‘when three pādas of the yuga (i. e. Kṛta, Treta and Dvāpara) and 3600 years more had elapsed, he was 23 years old’ i. e. (accepting the calculations current at present) in 499 A. D. Āryabhaṭa was 23 years old and so was born in 476 A. D. In his Pañcasiddhāntikā Varāhamihira ²⁷ (505 to 587 A. D.) summarises the data of several astronomical [[P895]] Siddhāntas of which Romaka is one, about which Brahmagupta remarks that the Romaka siddhanta is outside the pale of smṛtis because ²⁸ it omits all mention of yugas, manvantaras and kalpas that have been regarded by the smṛtis as useful in measuring time. Kalidasa ²⁹ in Raghuvamśa 15. 96 speaks of dharma as having only three feet (in Tretā) when Rāma made up his mind to depart from this world. No scholar will assign to Kālidāsa a date later than the middle of the 5th century A. D. Therefore the theory of yugas must be deemed to have been perfected long before 400 A. D. K. P. Jayaswal holds that the Yugapurāṇa chapter of the Garga-saṃhitā was composed about 50 B. C. (J. B. O. R. S. vol. 14 p. 399) and he is probably right.

At present it is the practice to hold Kali 5046 (expired) as equal to 1945 A. D. or śake 1867 or saṃvat 2001-2. But it appears that there were several views about the date of the beginning of the Kaliyuga. The exact starting point on the above computation was Friday, 18th February 3102 B. C. One view was that Kaliyuga was about to begin when the great Mahābhārata war was fought out. ³⁰ This view is expressed in the Aihole Inscription which appears to equate the beginning of Kali with the Bhārata war and states that 3735 years (expired) from the Bhārata war are equal to 556 years of the Śaka era. ³¹ Āryabhaṭa knew this computation, since he says that he was 23 years old when three parts of the (great) yuga and 3600 had elapsed (Kāla-kriyāpāda, verse 10). Another view set forth in the Purāṇas is that Kaliyuga began when Kṛṣṇa finished his avatāra and went to heaven ³². This would put the beginning [[P896]] of Kaliyuga several years after the date arrived at on the first view ³³. Vide Mausalaparva chap. 1. 13 and 2. 20 for reference to the lapse of 36 years before Kṛṣṇa’s passing away. The Yugapurāṇa appears to make Kaliyuga start on the day Draupadi died (vide J. B. O. R. S. vol. 14 p. 400). Another view is that of Varāhamihira who says that the constellation of the Great Bear was in Maghā when Yudhiṣṭhira was on the throne and that that time is arrived at by adding 2526 years to the śaka year ³⁴. This would place Yudhiṣṭhira in 653 of the Kali age (as calculated at present) and not at the end of Dvāpara and the beginning of Kali. The Rājatarangiṇī I. 56 quotes the Bṛhat-saṃhitā and holds that Kurus and Paṇḍavas flourished in 653 of the Kali yuga (I. 51). Great efforts have [[P897]] been made by several scholars to meet this discrepancy by explaining the word ‘ṣad-dvika-pañca-dviyutaḥ’ (in the Bṛhat saṃhitā) in various fanciful ways, which are far from satisfactory. There is no reason why dvika should not straightforwardly be taken in the sense of ’two’ ³⁵, as the Līlāvatī and Bṛ. Sam. 71. 5 itself do.

It is difficult to believe that the Śakakāla referred to in that verse is different from the Śakendrakāla or Śakabhūpakāla, which the Pañcasiddhāntikā (I. 8) and the Bṛhat-saṃhitā (8. 20-21) make use of in several places. At least Varāhamihira gives no such indication. Mr. C. V. Vaidya in his ‘Mahābhārata, a criticism’ pp. 80-81 holds that the Śakakāla referred to in the verse ‘āsan maghāsu &c.’ is the era of Buddha’s Nirvāṇa. There is hardly any warrant for this assumption. His interpretation of ‘ṣad-dvika-pañca-dviyutaḥ’ as meaning 2566 (and not 2526) is not bad and does not seriously affect the argument about the date of Yudhiṣṭhira. On that interpretation Yudhiṣṭhira would be placed in 2488 B. C. (instead of in 2448 B. C.). But there is no reason why the usual values of ṣaṭ (six), dvika (two) and other words should not be understood to be meant here.

The data contained in the Nidhanpur plates of Bhāskaravarman (E. I. vol. XII p. 65), when properly scrutinized, appear to favour the position of Varāhamihira. Those plates in setting out the genealogy of Bhāskaravarman start with Naraka, whose son Bhagadatta fought on the side of the Kauravas in the Mahabharata war and was killed by Arjuna (vide Droṇaparva chap. 29). Bhagadatta’s son is said to have been Vajradatta. After Vajradatta his descendants ruled over Kāmarūpa for 3000 years and then Puṣyavarman, a scion of the Bhagadatta family, became king of Kāmarūpa. King Bhāskaravarman was 12th from Puṣyavarman and was a contemporary of Emperor Harṣa (first half of the 7th century A. D.). Taking an average of 20 years for the reign of each ruler, Puṣyavarman should be taken as having flourished about the beginning of the 5th century A. D. Adding 3000 years which are alleged by the plates to have intervened between Puṣyavarman and Vajradatta, we arrive at about 2500 B. C. as the time of Vajradatta and therefore approximately of the Mahabharata war. This [[P898]] corresponds rather very closely with the statement of Varāhamihira who puts Yudhiṣṭhira’s reign at 653 Kaliyuga (i. e. 2448 B. C.). On the other hand, if we assume that the Mahābhārata war was fought in or that Kaliyuga started in 3101 B. C., then Puṣyavarman who flourished 3000 years after the Mahābhārata war would have to be placed about 101 B. C. and there will be an interval of about 700 or 750 years between Puṣyavarman and Bhāskaravarman. A period of 700 or 750 years for 12 rulers would work at about 60 years for each ruler, which is a very improbable average. Therefore the Nidhanpur plates do not support the hypothesis that the Mahābhārata war was fought about 3101 B. C., but rather support the statement of Varāhamihira that it was fought about 2500 B. C.

Another epoch for the Mahābhārata war and the beginning of Kaliyuga is indicated by some passages of historic importance found in some of the Purāṇas. The Vāyupurāṇa (99. 4-15) and the Matsyapurāṇa (273. 36) say that from the birth of Parīkṣit to the coronation of Mahāpadma (Nanda) a period of 1050 years elapsed, while the Bhāgavata XII. 2. 26 assigns 1015 years for the same. There is some mistake in the Purana texts here. The Matsya (in chap. 271. 17-30) enumerates the kings of the Bārhadratha dynasty of Magadha descended from Sahadeva, son of Jarāsandha, and states that the dynasty will rule (i. e. ruled) for a thousand years. Then chap. 272 (verses 1-5) speaks of five kings, who will be followed by the Śiśunāka dynasty, that together reigned for 360 years and the last king in which was Mahānandi (verses 6-13) whose son from a śūdra wife was Mahāpadma (272. 18). So if the years of these three dynasties are added we get the period of about 1500 years. This is supported by the Bhāgavatapurāṇa (IX. 22. 48 and XII. 1-2) and Vāyupurāṇa (99. 308-321), which latter says that 32 kings of the Bārhadratha dynasty will rule for 1000, then five Vītihotra kings for 138 years (Pradyota and others) and then the Śaiśunāka (Śiśunāga in the Bhāgavata and in the Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa III. 74. 134-135) dynasty for 362 (in all exactly 1500 years). The same periods are given by the Viṣṇupurāṇa (IV. 23 and 24) and by the Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa III. 74. 121-135. Śrīdhara in his comment on Bhāgavata XII. 2. 26 states that the interval between Parīkṣit and Nanda is 1498 as the Bhāgavata holds that the Śaiśunāga dynasty ruled for 360 years (XII. 1. 4-6). Therefore the proper reading in the Vāyupurāṇa or Matsyapurāṇa or the Bhāgavata should be ‘pañcaśatottaraṃ’ [[P899]] instead of ‘pañcāśaduttaram’ or ‘pañcadaśottaram.’ Taking the interval between Parīkṣit and Nanda to be 1500 years and holding as most modern scholars do that the Nandas flourished in the 4th century B. C., Parīkṣit, the grandson of Arjuna, the Mahābhārata war and the beginning of Kaliyuga would have to be placed in the 19th century B. C. Therefore there are so far three main different epochs for the Mahābhārata war viz. 3101 B. C., 2448 B. C. and about 1900 B. C. All the three are well attested by evidence dating at least from about the 5th century A. D. One cannot dogmatically say that a certain tradition alone out of these three is the only correct one. All that one can say is that one prefers a particular tradition to the other two. Since the epoch of 1900 B. C. is supported by the Purāṇas in great detail by citing the names of the several kings and their regnal years I personally regard the epoch of 1900 B. C. for the Mahābhārata war as more probable than the other two. It is best to acknowledge one’s inability to assign a certain date to the Mahābhārata war rather than twist plain words or ignore altogether inconvenient passages or put on them fanciful or far fetched interpretations. The first desideratum is to prepare critical editions of the important purāṇas from the best manuscript material. Even then it is doubtful whether unanimity among scholars can be secured. A scholarly beginning was made by Pargiter in his book “The Purāṇa texts of the dynasties of the Kali Age” (1913). He compares the material available in the printed editions of several Purāṇas and Manuscripts on the subject of royal dynasties. One cannot or may not agree with many of the assumptions and inferences that he makes or draws, yet one cannot withhold admiration for his industry and method. For example, I cannot agree with him when he takes ‘bhaviṣye kathitān’ of the Matsyapurāṇa or ‘bhaviṣye paṭhitān’ of Vāyu (99. 267) as referring to the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa. In many passages of the Purāṇas we have references to ‘bhaviṣyajña’ (Brahmāṇḍa III. 74. 105), which simply means ’those who are conversant with sections on the future’ contained in ancient works like the Mahābhārata.

It is not possible owing to limitations of space to enter into detailed examination of the theories of several scholars about the date of the Mahābhārata war. But one or two important matters will have to be referred to here.

Mr. Velandi Gopala Aiyer in ‘The chronology of Ancient India’ chap. II. (pp. 51-104) examines the astronomical data [[P900]] furnished by the Mahābhārata and relying on the far-fetched and wrong interpretation put by him on the words of the Bṛhat saṃhitā (quoted above) and on the fact that the Kollam era in Malabar appears to take 1177 B. C. as the starting point for Kaliyuga arrives at the conclusion that the Mahābhārata war took place in the latter part of 1194 B. C. This theory goes against all the three other starting points which are supported by comparatively ancient and authoritative evidence.

The information derived from the fragments of the work of Megasthenes on India are supposed to shed some light on this vexed problem. In one fragment (p. 115 of ‘Ancient India as described by Megasthenes &c.’) occurs the passage: ‘From him (i. e. Bacchus) to Alexander the Great 6451 years are reckoned with three months additional, the calculation being made by counting the kings that reigned in the intermediate period to the number of 153’. An extract from Pliny makes out the number of kings to be 154. As against this we have the statement in the ‘Indika’ of Arrian (2nd century A. D., translated by McCrindle, p. 203): “From the time of Dionysos to Sandrakottus, the Indians counted 153 kings and a period of 6042 years, but among these a republic was thrice established …… another to 300 years and another to 120 years. The Indians also tell us that Dionysos was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations and that except him no one made a hostile invasion of India.” This passage is of very great importance for one reason, viz. that it proves that in the 4th century B. C. there was a persistent Indian tradition which carried back Indian civilization and ordered government to 6000 years before the 4th century B. C. But there is great doubt as to what Megasthenes actually wrote and there is some divergence as to the number of years and kings also. Besides, this has no direct bearing on the date of the Mahābhārata war or the beginning of Kaliyuga, unless Heracles is taken to be Hari-Kṛṣṇa, as some scholars ³⁶ do. The account of Heracles (pp. 201-203 of McCrindle’s work) agrees in some respects with the legends about Kṛṣṇa viz. that he was honoured by the Sourasenoi (Śūrasenas), an Indian tribe who possess two large [[P901]] cities Methora (Mathura) and Cleisobora and that Heracles had many wives; but then there are other anecdotes about Heracles which do not at all agree viz. his having a daughter Pandaia with whom when she was only seven Heracles had intercourse for raising a mighty race. Here there is some confusion with the Pandavas and Kunti or with the Pandyan kingdom in the South. Moreover, 6000 years for 153 or 154 kings is rather a very long period. It cannot be said that a king is only a unit of time in these computations (40 years on an average), since such Purāṇas as the Vāyu and the Matsya expressly mention the number of years that each dynasty held sway, the number of kings belonging to each dynasty and the lengths of the reigns of several kings. It is no doubt true that the details of the names of the several kings, the number of kings and the duration of their reigns do not always tally. It appears that the Purāṇas that contain historical material were recast at different times, e. g. the Vāyupurāṇa (99. 383) refers to the Guptas while the Matsyapurāṇa is silent about them. The extant Puranas cannot be supposed to have given imaginary details about historical dynasties, but they must have had before them older records or traditions. The Purāṇas do not appear to have invented names of new kings or given imaginary lengths of reigns. The authors surely knew that the total of the several dynasties between Parīkṣit and Nanda did not square with the total of the lengths of the reigns of the several individual kings. But they gave both these without trying to solve the discrepancies as they wanted to record all the traditions they had got before them. The Purāṇas have a claim on our attention, but in the present state of our knowledge they cannot unfortunately form the basis of any certain or connected history and chronology of ancient times.

A few words may here be said about the attempts made to deduce the age of the Mahābhārata war from the astronomical references in the Epic.

The number of works and papers in which the dates of the Bharata war and of Kaliyuga are discussed is very large. A few of them only are noted here. The late Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit in his exhaustive volume on the ‘History of Indian Astronomy’ (in Marathi, 2nd ed. of 1931) deals with this subject at pp. 107-127. Mr. C. V. Vaidya in ‘Mahabharata, a criticism, 1904’ devotes one chapter (pp. 55–78) and appendix note V (pp. 180–190) to the date of the Mahabharata war. He holds fast to the traditional [[P902]] view that the Mahabhārata war was fought in 3101 B. C. Mr. N. Jagannatha Rao writes a book on the ‘Age of the Mahābhārata war’ (Bezwada, 1931), in which he disputes the identity of Candragupta Maurya with Sandracottus mentioned by Megasthenes, holds that Sandracottus is the Gupta Emperor Candragupta, that the date of Candragupta Maurya would be about 1535 B. C., that the word ‘Sakakāla’ in the Bṛhatsaṃhitā refers really to the era of the Persian Emperor Cyrus about 550 B. C. and that the Great War was fought in 3139 B. C. The work does not go deeply into anything and is rather superficial. There is a lengthy and interesting article by Mr. K. G. Saṅkar on ‘Some problems of Indian Chronology’ in Annals of the B. O. R. Institute, Poona, vol. XII pp. 301-361 in which he seems to favour 1198 B. C. as the date of the Mahābhārata war. Mr. J. S. Karandikar, editor of the ‘Kesari’ (Poona), contributed certain articles (in Marathi) which are now issued as a booklet (1939), in which he examines many of the astronomical references in the Mahābhārata and the Paurāṇic lists about the dynasties of ancient Indian kings and arrives at the conclusion that the Mahābhārata war was fought in 1931 B. C. Though I differ from him in important details, I think that the date arrived at by him appears to be one of the two probable or best authenticated dates among the several dates proposed by various scholars. Prof. P. C. Sen-Gupta contributed a paper to the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society in 1937, vol. III pp. 101-119, in which he discusses the date of the Mahabharata war and arrives at the conclusion that the Bhārata war was fought about 2449 B. C. This also is a very probable date and has the authority of the tradition mentioned in the Bṛhatsaṃhitā that the Śaka era is 2526 years after the era of Yudhiṣṭhira. In J. A. S. B. for 1938, vol. IV pp. 393-413 Prof. Sen-Gupta again examines Bhārata battle traditions and confirms the date 2449 B. C. already arrived at by him. Dr. K. L. Daftari delivered some lectures in the University of Nagpur on the ‘astronomical method and its application to the chronology of Ancient India’ which are published in book form (Nagpur, 1942). This work exhaustively deals with almost all the passages of astronomical importance contained in the Mahābhārata and is characterized by great industry, patient calculations and ingenious explanations of conflicting passages. His conclusion is that the Bharata war was fought in 1197 B. C. Although one feels nothing but admiration for the author’s great learning and acumen, it is not possible to agree with the date arrived at by him or with [[P903]] the method and theories adopted by him. Apart from details one cannot accede to the following theories propounded by him viz. his division of the astronomical references into two groups, his assumption that a passage in the Droṇaparva (chap. 184) about the rising of the moon at about 2 A. M. is an interpolation (because it does not square with his explanations of the other passages), his bold expedient of changing ‘citrām’ to ‘caitām’ in Bhīṣma 3. 12 and his transposition of Śravaṇa and Puṣya in Śalyaparva 34. 6, his taking ‘aṅgāraka’ to mean Venus (and not Mars). Dr. Daftari’s work was reviewed by Prof. Sen-Gupta in JASB for 1943, vol. IX pp. 221-228 and after submitting it to a searching analysis and calculations, the learned Professor arrives at the conclusion that he cannot accept Dr. Daftari’s method, which is useless for all practical purposes. Prof. K. V. Abhyankar contributes an article to the Annals of B. O. R. I. for 1914, vol. XXV. pp. 116-136 on ’the date and time of the Bhārata war’, in which he takes into account only the material available in the Epic itself and bases his conclusions ‘on the principle of following the voice of the majority’. He furnishes a useful table in an appendix that shows at a glance some of the important astronomical passages of the Mahābhārata with their interpretations given by the commentators Arjuna Miśra and Nīlakaṇṭha and by Mr. Karandikar and himself and finally gives his opinion that the traditional view of the date (3101 B. C.) is approximately correct. It appears that he had not, when he wrote the article, the work of Dr. Daftari before him nor Prof. Sen-Gupta’s devastating criticism of it. It will be apparent from the above that the attempts to settle the exact date of the Mahābhārata war on the strength of the astronomical materials contained therein are dismal failures. Hardly any two scholars agree on the exact dates so arrived at, which range from 1193 B. C. to 3101 B. C. and even beyond. There are many reasons for this disappointing result. In the first place, several of the criteria mentioned in the epic are hopelessly inconsistent, as will be made clear a little below by a few examples. Further, several scholars assume that the epic was composed within a short time (about three years according to Ādiparva 62. 52, or cr. ed. chap. 56. 32) after the war. Many (including my humble self) cannot subscribe to this view. Besides, we are totally in the dark about the details of the system of the calendar generally adopted at the period of the war. Many suppose that it largely resembled the rules contained in the Vedānga Jyotiṣa (of the Rgveda). There is no unanimity on the question whether the months [[P904]] ended with amāvāsyā (i. e. whether they were amānta) or whether they ended with Full Moon (i. e. whether they were pūrṇimānta). [^905_1766] That a pūrṇimānta month was in vogue in Vedic times is beyond dispute. For example, Tai. S. states that Pūrva Phalguni is the last night of the year and Uttarā Phalguni is the mouth (i. e. beginning). Similarly Tai. S. VII. 4. 8. 2 declares that the citrāpūrṇamāsa is the mouth of the year; while Śāṅ. Br. IV. 4 declares that the Phālguni Paurṇamāsī is the mukha of the year. The author or authors of the Mahābhārata, in describing the evil portents of an impending tragic or catastrophic event, often assemble together (as in Udyoga 143. 5-29, Bhīṣma 2. 16-33) all of them irrespective of the fact whether some of them are possible in the very order of nature. For example, it is stated that Arundhatī went before Vasiṣṭha (Bhīṣma 2. 31), that a mare gave birth to a cow calf and that a bitch gave birth to a jackal (Bhīṣma 3.6) and that images of gods trembled, laughed and vomited blood (Bhīṣma 2. 26, which may be compared with Bṛhatsaṃhitā 45. 8 and the verses of Garga quoted by Utpala thereon); it is several times said that the Moon and the Sun are seized (i. e. eclipsed) at an unusual season (aparvani) or simultaneously by Rāhu (vide Bhīṣmaparva 3.28 and 32-33 and Āśvamedhikaparva 77.15). ³⁷

[[P906]] Further, these very verses state that the eclipses of the Sun and the Moon took place on the same day and on the 13th and in the same month. Dr. Daftari interprets ’ekāhnā’ as meaning on the same week-day and ‘on the 13th tithi’ (pp. 5-6 of his work) calculated according to the wrong method of those days. It is extremely doubtful whether week-days had been known or named at the time of the Bhārata war or even at the time of the composition of the Epic. It is too much to assume that the astronomers of the Mahabharata war days, while they could predict eclipses and state accurately the position of the planets, were so clumsy as to allow a mistake of two tithis to occur in their calendar with respect to the occurrence of a solar eclipse. The words in Bhīṣmaparva 3. 28 and 32-33 appear to be a mere exaggerated statement of portents. If real observed eclipses are meant they would have to be taken in the order of the words in the text, viz. first an eclipse of the Moon (on Kārtika paurṇimā) and then an eclipse of the Sun (on Kārtika amāvāsyā) and further it must be assumed that the dark half of Kārtika contained only 13 days. Dr. Daftari (pp. 44-46 of his work) holds that first there was a solar eclipse on Aśvina amāvāsyā, then a lunar eclipse and then again a solar eclipse. In that case we should expect the order to be ‘sūrya-candrau’ and not ‘candrasūryau’. Besides, hardly any other scholar holds that there were three eclipses one after another. Therefore, it is hardly possible to say with certainty that the author accurately states astronomical facts observed by him or even traditionally handed down as definite facts and does not draw on his own imagination about the portents or does not exaggerate as a rhetorical device. In Bṛhatsaṃhitā 5. 26, 97-98 Varāhamihira states the evil consequences if a moon eclipse precedes or follows a sun eclipse in the period of one fortnight.

[[P907]] Most of the important astronomical details will now be set out from the time when Lord Kṛṣṇa is said to have started as a peace-maker to the Kauravas. In Udyogaparva 83, 6-7 ³⁸ it is said that Kṛṣṇa started in the month of Kārtika (Kaumude māsi) at the end of the śarad season and about the advent of winter, when the moon was in Revatī nakṣatra and on maitra muhūrta. Āśvina and Kārtika are at present said to form the season of śarad, and Mārgaśirṣa and Pauṣa form hemanta. This verse itself presents a difficulty. On the Full Moon day of Kārtika, the moon is in Kṛttikā nakṣatra and the moon would be in Revatī three days before i. e. on or about the 12th of the bright half of Kārtika. If we take this along with the words ‘at the end of śarad’ it follows that the month was pūrṇimānta; otherwise (i. e. if the month were amānta) it would be highly improper to say that the 12th of the bright half of Kārtika was at the end of Śarad. After Kṛṣṇa failed in his mission he returned to the Pāṇḍavas (for all of which we must allow a few days after the 12th of Kārtika śukla) and reported what Duryodhana and he himself said. Two of the statements reported by him are very material. Duryodhana said to his allies: ‘March towards Kurukṣetra (for battle); to-day the moon is (in) Puṣya nakṣatra’. ³⁹ If Kṛṣṇa started on his mission when the moon was in Revatī (on the 12th of the bright half of Kārtika), then these above words must have been uttered in his presence on or about the 5th of the dark half of Kārtika (or of Mārgaśirṣa if the month was pūrṇimānta). Another important statement is that Kṛṣṇa in his conversation with Karṇa (whom he had tried to win over) stated to him: ’this is a mild month in

[[P908]] which fodder and fuel can be easily had, which is neither too hot nor too cold; on the 7th day (from today) there will be amāvāsyā; battle may be joined on that day; they regard it as having Indra for its (guardian) ⁴⁰ deity’. Therefore this must have been said on or about the 8th of the dark half of the month. But what was the name of the month? If the reckoning was pūrṇimānta, the month must be Mārgaśirṣa, but if the reckoning was amānta, the month must be Kārtika. The words ’this month’ taken along with Udyoga 83, 6–7 would indicate that the month meant was Kārtika. Further, Indra was the deity of Jyeṣṭhā nakṣatra and the amāvāsyā (as stated in Udyoga 142. 16-18) had Jyeṣṭhā nakṣatra. In modern times this is possible on Kārtika Amāvāsyā, while there cannot be Jyeṣṭhā nakṣatra in modern times on Mārgaśirṣa amāvāsyā, but only on or about the 13th of the dark half of it. But this passage itself (Udyoga 142. 16-18) is in conflict with Śalya 35. 10 where Kṛṣṇa says: ’the Kauravas do not act up to my words, being driven to do so by the Time Spirit; O descendants of Pāṇḍu, go out (for battle) together with me when the moon is in Puṣya’. If the moon was in Jyeṣṭhā on amāvāsyā when Kṛṣṇa had proposed to Karṇa that the war should be begun, this passage of Śalyaparva would put the beginning of the war 16 or 17 days after Kārtika amāvāsyā, which is not warranted by any other passage and which no scholar puts forward. In Udyoga 143. 11 it is stated, ⁴¹ “the spot on the moon has turned away (disappeared) and Rāhu approaches the Sun.’ The exact meaning of the first quarter is not quite clear. Some interpret it to mean that ‘an eclipse of the Moon has already taken place’. The moon looks beautiful with the spot thereon (compare Śakuntalā I ‘malinamapi himāṃśor lakṣma lakṣmīṃ tanoti’). The disappearance of the spot might have been looked upon as an evil portent. Even supposing that the first quarter refers to an eclipse of the moon, it does not matter much. The second quarter states that an eclipse of the Sun was expected when Karṇa addressed these words to Kṛṣṇa, the envoy of the

[[P909]] Paṇḍavas. Later on in Bhīṣma 2. 23 it is stated ⁴² that the Moon had become devoid of brightness, was without its spot on the Full moon day of Kārtika and assumed the colour of fire while the sky retained its original hue; so that if there was an eclipse of the moon it was on Kārtika Paurṇimā and an eclipse of the sun was yet to take place. On the whole, therefore, one may assume, though not without hesitation, that the months were amānta, that possibly there was an eclipse of the moon on Kārtika Full Moon when Kṛṣṇa had gone as a peace-maker and that there was a solar eclipse on the amāvāsyā of Kārtika just about the time the war began. In Śalyaparva 56. 10 we again meet with the words (at the beginning of the mace duel) ‘Rāhu swallowed the Sun at an unusual season’. This passage and Aśvamedhika 77. 15 (Rāhur-agrasadādityam yugapat soma meva ca) rather suggest that the eclipse of the sun at an unusual time had become a stock example of an evil portent without the actual occurrence thereof. The words in Śalyaparva refer to the last day of the war before the mace duel between Duryodhana and Bhīma and the passage says that Rāhu seized the sun and there was an earth-quake also. Hardly any one (except Dr. Daftari) holds that there was another eclipse on the last day of the war, when just before the war there already had been an eclipse on Kārtika amāvāsyā.

As to the exact tithi and nakṣatra on which the Great War began, there are many conflicting statements. In the Bhārata sāvitrī it is stated that the Bhārata war started in the first month (i. e. Mārgaśirṣa) of Hemanta on the 13th of the bright half when the moon was in the nakṣatra presided over by Yama (i. e. Bharaṇī) ⁴³.

The Bhārata-sāvitrī is no part of the [[P910]] Mahābhārata, yet it has some traditional value, being probably earlier than all the commentators of the Mahābhārata and later than the text of Sauti. In conflict with this passage of the Bhāratasāvitrī we have the words of Udyoga 142. 18 (quoted above) where Kṛṣṇa says to Karṇa that battle may be joined on amāvāsyā when the moon is in Jyeṣṭhā. The Mahābhārata itself states that after the disposition of the vast armies were made and commanders were appointed, Duryodhana called Ulūka and sent him to the Pandavas to inflame their feelings with the words ⁴⁴ (Udyoga 160. 93) ’the worship of steel (weapons) has been performed, the site of Kurukṣetra is dried up (has no mud), your horses are well fed, warriors are hired by you; fight tomorrow.’ This Lohābhihāra (or-sāra) is the same as the rite of nirājanā (according to the Amarakośa) or is performed immediately after nirājanā (for which see pp. 230-231 above). Kautilya (II. 30 p. 135) prescribes a nīrājanā rite at the start of an invasion and when two seasons meet. So a nīrājanā rite on Kārtika amāvāsyā would be most appropriate (both because a battle was to be begun and because at the end of Kārtika the season of Śarad ended). The Bṛhatsaṃhitā (43. 1-2) prescribes a nīrājanā rite for horses, elephants and men on the 8th or 12th of Kārtika bright half or on the 15th of Kārtika (Full Moon or amāvāsyā). It is extremely doubtful

[[P911]] whether Mr. Karandikar is right in saying that Lohābhihāra (or-sāra) refers to Skandaṣaṣṭhī. In the first place, the worship of weapons can be done at any time, particularly when a battle is to be commenced. In the second place, it is not necessary to postulate the lapse of six days and more for the sending of Ulūka and his return from the time when Kṛṣṇa said that battle may be begun on amāvāsyā. The armies had taken up opposite positions on the field of Kurukṣetra and Ulūka could have come and gone in a day or two. Further, we have no evidence that Skanda-ṣaṣṭhī was performed in northern India in Mārgaśirṣa, though very late works composed by dākṣiṇātyas like the Nirṇayasindhu say that Skandaṣaṣṭhī is the same as Campāṣaṣṭhī in Mahārāṣṭra and is observed on the 6th of Mārgaśirṣa. Raghunandana quoting Devipurāṇa places Skandasasthi on Caitra 6th of the bright half and is supported by the Matsyapurāṇa quoted above in n.1766. There is no reason why the actual fight should commence so late as the 13th day of Mārgaśirṣa (or even 11th as Mr. Karandikar suggests) when Kṛṣṇa said that it should be joined on amāvāsyā. It is quite possible that the war began on or about Kārtika amāvāsyā. The observance of ’lohābhihāra’ does not lead to the certain inference that the war was not begun till several days after the 6th of the bright half of Mārgaśirṣa. Similarly, Mr. Karandikar says that the moon is ordinarily in Bharaṇī on the 11th or 12th of the bright half of Mārgaśirṣa. It may be so. But it is possible to have the moon in Bharaṇī even on the 13th. I am inclined to hold that the Bhāratasāvitrī dates of the beginning of the war embody a different tradition altogether from the one contained in the Mahābhārata itself. The Bhāratasāvitrī is silent about nakṣatras on which the principal events of the war took place except at the commencement of the war. It mentions no tithikṣaya or tithivṛddhi. Kṛṣṇa sends a message with Ulūka to Duryodhana (Udyoga 162. 57) ’tomorrow you will be seen’ (in your true colours) and Arjuna does the same (Udyoga 163. 14).

The Mahābhārata nowhere states quite explicitly the tithi or nakṣatra on which the battle actually commenced. We have to rely upon various indications to arrive at the tithi or nakṣatra. Balarama could not bear to see the fight between Duryodhana and Bhima, both of whom were his pupils in mace-duel and went on a pilgrimage (Udyoga 157. 33-35 and 158. 39). Balarama returned on the 18th day of the war and (in Salyapa rva 34. 6) [[P912]] he remarks, ‘it is 42 days since I left (on a pilgrimage); I started when the moon was in Puṣya and I have come here again on Śravaṇa’ ⁴⁵. In Śalya 35. 13-14 it is stated that Balarama went to the river Sarasvati on pilgrimage on ‘maitra-nakṣatra yoga’ (i. e. when the moon was in Anuradha). This conflict may be resolved by holding, as Nilakantha does, that Balarama left the Pandavas on Pusya, reached the Sarasvati on Anuradha and returned on Śravaṇa. If we follow Śalya 34.6 the war commenced when the moon was in or near Mṛgaśirṣa (18 nakṣatras before Śravaṇa). This would be in direct conflict with a passage in Bhīṣmaparva 17.2 that ⁴⁶ ‘on the day of battle the moon was in the province of Māgha’ and also other passages that will be indicated later on. This last passage should ordinarily mean that the moon was near Māgha. Mr. Karandikar looks upon Śalya 34.6 as an interpolation and takes Bhīṣma 17.2 to mean that the moon was in an inauspicious nakṣatra of the category of Māgha. This would suit Bharaṇī but not Rohiṇī or Mṛgaśirṣa. His meaning is far fetched and he does not explain why Bharaṇī was not directly mentioned in the Epic, when in several other places the epic does mention directly the nakṣatra concerned. His explanation gives the go-by to the 13th tithi. Dr. Daftari boldly asserts that we must transpose the nakṣatras (in Śalya 34. 6) and read ‘śravaṇe samprayātosmi puṣyeṇa punarāgataḥ’. If we once resort to these methods followed by these two learned writers, there is no knowing where one should stop. There are scholars who might with equal or greater plausibility claim that most of these astronomical references are either of very late date or are interpolations (vide Vaidya’s ‘Mahābhārata’ p. 71). Similarly, if we once concede that we are at liberty to change readings to suit our theories even in the total absence of all manuscript evidence, then there is no sure foundation on which we can build. The Mahābhārata passages have a tradition of centuries behind them. We must, in the absence of good mss. evidence to the contrary, either accept them all and try to explain them or we must give up the job of reconciling them as a hopeless tangle and rely on other evidence to arrive at the date of the [[P913]] Bhārata war as best as we can. We saw above that Jyestha was the nakṣatra on Kārtika amāvāsyā and, if the war began then, the nakṣatra on the 18th day from then would be Pusya. Nilakantha, following the Mimāṃsā rules of interpretation, holds that the concluding passage (upasamhāravākya) is superior in strength to passages that occur at the beginning of a work, that the passage in Śalya 34. 6 is the dominant one and other conflicting passages must be either brushed aside or explained away in conformity with Śalya 34.6 and gives an explanation of ‘Maghāviṣayagaḥ somaḥ’ which is quite unsatisfactory. Dr. Daftari also holds, relying on Atharva Jyotiṣa, that the passage means ’the moon was in Mūla’ (p. 27 para. 62-65 of his work ‘Astronomical method’ &c.). The explanation is ingenious but one fails to see why this round-about way was resorted to and why the text did not simply say ‘mūlanakṣatragaḥ somaḥ’, which violates no metrical requirements. In Anuśāsana parva (167.26-28) Bhīṣma, while on the bed of darts, states: ⁴⁷ ’the sun has turned (towards the north); 58 days have passed by since I laid myself down on this (arrow bed). This is the mild month of Māgha that is now current, three parts of it remain and this fortnight should be śukla’. Bhīṣma was struck down on the 10th day of the war; so 67 nights had passed from the day when the war began to the day in Māgha on which this was uttered. The difficulty is how to connect ’tribhāgaśeṣaḥ’, whether as an adjective of ‘māsa’ or of ‘pakṣa’. If we take it in the first way, these words were uttered on 8th of Māgha śukla; if we take it as an adjective of ‘pakṣa’, then they will have to be taken as uttered on the 4th of the bright half or on the 4th of the dark half which may be regarded in its astrological effects as equal to śuklapakṣa (though the tithi itself is in the dark half). If the words were uttered on the 8th of Māgha śukla, the Bhārata war began on Kārtika amāvāsyā (which will be in consonance with Udyoga 142. 18 quoted in n. 1770). The passage in Anuśāsana (167. 26-28) is supported by two other passages. After the war was over, Yudhisthira went to the capital and stayed there for 50 nights and when he found that the Sun had started on its apparent northward path (uttarāyana) he came to Bhīṣma (Anuśāsana 167. 5). In Śāntiparva 51. 14 Kṛṣṇa says to Bhīṣma: ‘You have yet to live 56 days.’ Nīlakaṇṭha, who takes Śalya 34. 6 as the dominant passage, puts a [[P914]] most far-fetched construction on the word ‘astapañcāśatam’, which he takes to mean ‘one hundred minus 58’ i. e. 42 nights and explains ‘pañcāśatam ṣaṭ ca’ as equal to 30. This shows to what straits commentators are reduced when conflicting passages have got to be explained away. One more indication about the tithi on which the war commenced is afforded by Droṇaparva chap. 184, where it is stated that a grim fight went on till midnight when Ghatotkaca was killed, that the fatigued armies then snatched some sleep, that then the moon rose at about 2 A. M. (verse 46) and that the fight was then resumed ⁴⁸ (chap 186. 1 tribhagamātraśeṣāyāṃ rātryāṃ yuddham-avartata). This description of moonrise shows that Ghatotkaca was killed on or about the 11th of the dark half. We know from the Mahābhārata itself that Ghatotkaca was killed on the night of the 4th day of Drona’s command or on the 14th day after the war began. This would establish that the war began on the 12th or 13th of the bright half and ended on the 14th of the dark half or on amāvāsyā of Mārgaśirṣa. Dr. Daftari holds that this description is an interpolation.

If we try to find out the nakṣatra on which the war began, we have one sure criterion in Śalya 34. 6 viz. that the war ended on Śravaṇa nakṣatra when Balarāma returned from pilgrimage. Now the moon cannot be in Śravaṇa at all in Mārgaśirṣa dark half, but may be in it on the first or 2nd of the bright half of Pauṣa. So between the tithi and nakṣatra as disclosed by the Mahābhārata itself there is a slight discrepancy of a day or two. There is another way of looking at the data. Bhīṣma was waiting for uttarāyana to begin and we know that he passed away on the 59th day after he was mortally wounded on the 10th day of the war. Therefore, a period of 67 days (58 nights of his lying on arrow-bed plus 9 nights of the battle when he slept on his usual bed) elapsed between the beginning of the war and the beginning of Uttarayana, which undoubtedly occurred in Māgha in that year (as Anuśāsana 167. 28 expressly states). The real difficulty is to find out the tithi of the commencement of Uttarāyaṇa. But if we accept the approximate tithi and nakṣatra (as stated above) of the end of [[P915]] the war (i.e. Mārgaśirṣa amāvāsyā or 1st of Pauṣa and Śravaṇa nakṣatra), uttarāyaṇa began 49 days thereafter i. e. on or about the 4th of the dark half of Māgha. According to the Vedānga jyotiṣa, 4th of the dark half of Māgha is one of the tithis on which uttarayana may begin (vide Dikshit’s work pp. 75, 91). How scholars accept one of the data and reject others is well illustrated here. Acc. to Śalya 34. 6 the war ended on Śravaṇa (and so should have begun when the moon was in Mṛgaśirṣa). Acc. to the Bhāratasāvitrī the war began on Bharaṇī and on the 13th of the bright half of Mārgaśīrṣa and ended on Amāvāsyā (and therefore the nakṣatra was Mūla or Pūrvāṣāḍhā). Arjunamiśra gives up the nakṣatras and sticks to the tithis. Mr. Karandikar gives up the express verse about Śravaṇa (and regards that whole chapter as an interpolation), he gives up the 13th tithi of the beginning of the war as given in the Bhārata sāvitrī, holds that the war began on 11th instead and sticks fast to the Bharaṇī nakṣatra given in the Bhāratasāvitrī. Dr. Daftari altogether changes the reading of Śalya 34, 6 by transposing the nakṣatras mentioned.

The difference between the day of Uttarāyaṇa in Māgha stated in the Mahābhārata and the day thereof at present is utilised by scholars for arriving at the date of the Mahābhārata war.

There are other data in the Mahābhārata from which also the date of the Mahābhārata war is sought to be deduced. Before entering into details, some matters that are accepted by most scholars may be stated here. It is generally held that there were two eclipses, first, one of the moon immediately followed by a solar eclipse, that there was a fortnight of 13 days which was looked upon as very unusual and a very evil omen. Vide Bhīṣma 3. 28 quoted in n. 1767. In Bhīṣmaparva 3. 31-32 Vyāsa is reported as saying, ‘I have known amāvāsyā occurring on the 14th, 15th or 16th day (of a pakṣa), but I do not know an amāvāsyā occurring on the 13th day (of a pakṣa); both the moon and the sun were eclipsed in the same month on the 13th day’. In the Mausala-parva ⁴⁹ 2. 18-19, when Kṛṣṇa, 36 years after the war, beheld certain portents it is said, “on observing those portents on the amāvāsyā occurring on the 13th day he declared ‘Rāhu had made this (13th day) appear as the 14th and 15th (when usually there is amāvāsyā) when the Bhārata [[P916]] war took place; to-day it has again occurred for our destruction’. From these words it is clear that the occurrence of amāvāsyā at the end of a pakṣa of 13 days was looked upon as a very evil omen. Then many scholars hold that a comet had also appeared at the time of the great war. Bhīṣma 3. 13 ⁵⁰ states, ‘a very frightful comet stands in the sky covering the constellation of Puṣya’. There are grave doubts whether the statement is made from actual observation. The appearance of a comet has always been associated in ancient times with great calamities. Compare Kumārasambhava II. 32 ‘upaplavāya lokānām dhūmaketurivotthitaḥ’. As indicated above, the Mahābhārata gathers together several possible and impossible things to emphasize their significance as to impending calamities. Therefore the inclusion of a comet among portents does not establish that a comet had actually appeared at the time of the Bhārata war. Supposing for argument that a comet had appeared, that circumstance is of no help at all in settling the date. A large number of comets is included in the sun’s retinue. The number of comets of long periods that approach the sun in a century is said to be 300. There is nothing to show what particular comet appeared at the time of the war and no one has data to connect the Mahābhārata comet with Halley’s comet or any other comet well-known in modern times. Therefore the datum about a comet is entirely worthless for purposes of chronology. According to Bṛhatsaṃhitā 11, 5 and Utpala thereon the ancient writer Parāśara held the view that there were 101 ketus and Garga said that there were a thousand. The description in Bhīṣma 3. 13 states that the perihelion of the comet was in Puṣya. In Udyogaparva 143. 10 it is said ‘since a graha specially afflicts Citrā, a great calamity is indeed approaching the Kauravas’. This may probably refer to a comet. Two other verses appear to have some bearing on this. Bhīṣma 3. 12 states ⁵¹ that the white graha stands traversing [[P917]] Citrā (i. e. it is about to enter into Svātī) and verse 16 says, ’the white graha is fiery like fire emitting smoke and stands occupying Jyeṣṭhā which is a bright star presided over by Indra’. What is meant by ‘white graha’? The words śveto grahaḥ should ordinarily denote Venus. Nīlakaṇṭha takes them to mean Ketu (node) in Bhīṣma 3. 12 and another comet in 3. 16. If this latter explanation be accepted there were two comets seen at the time. Even if we hold that Bhīṣma 3. 16 describes the tail of the comet mentioned in 3. 13, that is of very little help. All that would be meant would be that the tail of the comet was a very long one. Bhīṣma 3. 17 has been taken to refer to Rāhu by Nīlakaṇṭha, while some modern scholars hold that it refers to a comet. It means, ‘a cruel comet standing between Citrā and Svātī, afflicts Rohiṇī and also the sun and the moon’. The description of the Ketu called Śveta in Bṛhatsaṃhitā 11. 39 agrees very closely with the description in the Bhīṣmaparva and Parāśara quoted by Utpala thereon states that this Ketu called ‘Śveta’ becomes visible after 115 years and portends the destruction of two-thirds of the population.

Then there are several passages which state the positions of several planets just before the battle or on the day the battle began. Here again at least two different positions are assigned to each planet except Mercury. It is first to be noted that at the beginning of the war all the seven planets excluding Rāhu and Ketu are declared to have been near each other (Bhīṣma 17. 2, in note 1776 above). We know from the Mahābhārata itself that the Sun and the Moon on Kārtika amāvāsyā were in Jyeṣṭhā. If the war began on amāvāsyā or a day later, the planets must be near Jyeṣṭhā. If the Bhāratasāvitrī be followed then the war began on Mārgaśirṣa bright 13 and on Bharaṇī. If that were so, the sun and the moon cannot be together. Mr. Karandikar takes 11th of the bright half of Mārgaśīrṣa to be the tithi of the beginning of the war and holds that the Sun was in nakṣatra Jyeṣṭhā and that the moon was in Bharaṇī (following the Bhāratasāvitrī as to this last). I should hold that we are not at liberty to take one datum from one group of statements and another from another group and then say that it is proved that the war was fought at a particular time. It is further noted in Karṇaparva 37. 4 that on Karṇa’s death (i.e. 17 days after the war began), the seven planets were seen going away from the Sun ⁵². The positions of the planets at the beginning of the war were as follows:

Section of Planets’ Positions (Pages 917–922)

[[P917]] SUN — Udyoga 143. 11 (Rāhu approaches the Sun) Bhīṣma 3. 11, Bhīṣma 3. 28, 32 (q. above in n. 1767 ³⁷)
The Sun was either in Jyeṣṭhā or near Mṛgaśirṣa.

MOON — Bhīṣma 3. 17 (paruṣa graha i, e. Rāhu afflicted both the Sun and the Moon) and Rohiṇī, Bhīṣma 3. 28, 32 (q. above in n. 1767 ³⁷) Bhīṣma 17. 2 (the Moon was in the province of Māgha q. above in n. 1776 ⁴⁵).

MERCURY — Karṇaparva 94. 49 says that on Karṇa’s death the son of the Moon (i. e. Mercury), the white luminary, rose slantingly resembling in hue fire and the Sun ⁵³. The Śalyaparva 11. 18 states that ‘Mars, Venus and Mercury were in conjunction’ ⁵⁴. If Mars was in Maghā as stated in Bhīṣma 3. 14 and Mars and Mercury were in conjunction, Mercury would be in Maghā, which forebodes destruction of people by war, as stated in Bṛhatsaṃhitā 7. 3. [[P918]]

MARS — Udyoga 143. 9 states, “Mars having made a retrograde motion in Jyeṣṭhā seeks (to reach or afflict?) Anurādhā, the nakṣatra presided over by Mitra, as if bringing death (to friends)’. Bhīṣma 3. 14 states: ‘Mars is retrograde in Māgha.’ What is the meaning of this? Literally it means that Mars was in Maghā and was retrograde in motion. Mr. Karandikar holds that Mars had only dṛṣṭi on Maghā and was in Puṣya. Supposing this is correct, Mars was not near the Sun but far away. Bhīṣma 3. 18 declares: ‘Mars, having changed its motion after being retrograde and with the lustre of fire, stands covering Śravaṇa, the mansion of Bṛhaspati’ ⁵⁵. [[P919]]

We find that the Mahābhārata employs two classes of expressions. When it uses words like ’tiṣṭhati’ (stands), ‘ākramya’ (having traversed), ‘saṃvṛtya’ or ‘samparivārya’ (having covered or concealed) it means that the planet was in or very near that nakṣatra. When words meaning ‘afflicts (pīḍayati)’ are employed, the meaning is probably that the planet has only dṛṣṭi on the nakṣatra. It is impossible to say whether the rules and theories about dṛṣṭi or pūrṇa dṛṣṭi and partial dṛṣṭi had been evolved at the time of the Mahābhārata War. If the war was fought about 3101 B. C. or even 1931 B. C. there is nothing to establish that the theories about dṛṣṭi contained even in the Atharvajyotiṣa (which is certainly later than the Vedāṅgajyotiṣa of the Rgveda i. e. much later than about 1200 B. C.) were known then. Vide under Venus for further difficulties.

JUPITER — Bhīṣma 3. 14 states that Jupiter was retrograde in Śravaṇa; Bhīṣma 3. 27 states, ⁵⁶ ‘Both Jupiter and Saturn that had stayed together for a year are near Viśākhā and are both fiery’. Jupiter cannot stay for one year in one nakṣatra; it traverses 2.25 nakṣatras in a year. If at the time of the war Jupiter was near Viśākhā it could not have been near it for a year. Eleven months before that it would have been very near Citrā. If it was near Viśākhā at the time of the war and the Sun was in Jyeṣṭhā, it can hardly be correct to say that seven planets had come together in the sky (there being a distance of about two nakṣatras or about 26 degrees between the two). Even if we hold the meaning to be that Jupiter and Saturn had remained near Viśākhā for one year and are (now at the time of the war) fiery, that does not solve the difficulty. In the first place, it is not a natural construction. This meaning would leave the exact position of the two planets at the time of the war unspecified. But Jupiter and Saturn must be supposed to be in or near Jyeṣṭhā if the Sun was in Jyeṣṭhā at the beginning of the war. If Saturn was in Jyeṣṭhā at the time of the war it could have been one year in Viśākhā about two years before the war. What is the propriety of mentioning Saturn’s position two years before the war? The relevant point is to state that position at the time of the war. Therefore it must be held that Bhīṣma 3. 27 states their position at the time of the war and adds one more circumstance that they were there for one year.

Karṇaparva 94, 51 says: ‘Bṛhaspati having entirely covered Rohiṇī has become like the Sun and the Moon’. If at the beginning of the war Bṛhaspati was retrograde and was near Viśākhā, it passes one’s understanding how in a fortnight it came to Rohiṇī. Mr. Karandikar suggests that Rohiṇī here is the name of Jyeṣṭhā as in the Tai. S. IV. 4. 10. 1-3. Again in this explanation there are several difficulties. There is nothing to show that at the time of the Bhārata war or of the epic Jyeṣṭhā was called Rohiṇī. The Tai. S. does not employ the name Jyeṣṭhā in its list. It speaks of Rohiṇī once as having Prajāpati for its presiding deity and then as having Indra as the presiding deity. Jyeṣṭhā is well-known to the Mahābhārata and the word is employed by it in other passages. Further, if Bṛhaspati had covered Jyeṣṭhā it can hardly be correct or even useful (for the purposes of chronology) to say that Jupiter was near Viśākhā. [[P920]]

VENUS — Bhīṣma 3. 15 states that Venus ⁵⁷ having ascended (i. e. occupied) the Pūrvābhādrapada nakṣatra shines charmingly and it looks up to Uttarābhādrapadā together with (?). The meaning of ‘parikramya sahitaḥ’ is not at all clear. However the first half is as clear as possible. Venus was in Pūrvā Proṣṭhapadā. If the Sun was in Jyeṣṭhā on Kārtika amāvāsyā it is impossible that Venus could have been in the 8th nakṣatra from Jyeṣṭhā. Venus is never more than four nakṣatras from the Sun in the sky. This would completely knock on the head the principal statement that seven planets were near each other. Mr. Karandikar in desperation suggests that we should understand Pūrvāṣāḍhā for ‘Proṣṭhapade Pūrve’ and also that the word ‘Proṣṭhapade’ was an interpolation inserted by some busy body later on. As I have frequently said above, this is a most unjustifiable way of dealing with the so called astronomical data in the Mahābhārata. ‘Proṣṭhapade Pūrve’ can never mean ‘Pūrvāṣāḍhā’. In the Tai. S. IV, 4. 10. 1-3, and the Tai. Br. I. 5. 1 and III. 1. 1 the word Proṣṭhapadā is expressly employed for Pūrva Bhādrapada. Why should one word in a verse be held to be interpolated? Is it because it does not agree with one’s hypothesis? In Śalya 11. 18 Venus and Mars are said to be in conjunction with the Moon. If the war started on Bharaṇī as the Bhāratasāvitrī says, then at the time of the mace-duel the moon might be in Jyeṣṭhā and therefore both Mars and Venus will have to be in Jyeṣṭhā. But this is opposed to two of the passages cited above referring to the position of Mars. If the war began on Jyeṣṭhā and Kārtika amāvāsyā, then on the 18th day the moon will be in Puṣya or Aśleṣā and both Venus and Mars would have to be in one of these two. In any case, if Venus was in Pūrvā-bhādrapadā at the beginning of the war, on the 18th day it can neither be in Jyeṣṭhā, nor in Puṣya nor in Aśleṣā. Besides, it is debatable whether Bhīṣma 3. 16 (where ‘śveto grahaḥ’ is mentioned) refers to Venus or not. Venus is often called ‘Sita’ in ancient astronomical works (e. g. in Bṛhat |saṃhitā 9. 42, 45). [[P921]]

SATURN — We have four statements about Saturn. In Udyoga 143. 8 we read, ⁵⁸ ‘A refulgent and malignant planet, Saturn, afflicts the nakṣatra presided over by Prajāpati (i. e. Rohiṇī)’; Bhīṣma 2. 32 states, ‘Saturn afflicts Rohiṇī’; Bhīṣma 3. 14 says, ’the nakṣatra presided over by Bhaga is covered and afflicted by Saturn’; Jupiter and Saturn are near Viśākhā (Bhīṣma 3. 27 considered above). In the first three passages the root ‘pīḍ’ occurs and therefore it is possible to argue that some kind of aspect (dṛṣṭi or vedha) of the nakṣatra mentioned in the text is meant. But in the third passage both ‘ākramya’ and ‘pīḍayati’ are used about the same nakṣatra. This makes that passage inexplicable in the usual way. The ‘prājāpatya nakṣatra’ must be Rohiṇī as in the 2nd passage Rohiṇī is expressly named. All authorities agree that Prajāpati is the deity of Rohiṇī. ‘Prājāpatya nakṣatra’ cannot be taken to mean Mūla, since the presiding deity of Mūla is ‘pitaraḥ’ in Tai. S. IV. 4. 10. 1-3 and Nirṛti (in the Tai. Br. I. 5. 1 and in the Vedāṅgajyotiṣa) and Prajāpati only in some later works. Bhaga is the presiding deity of Uttarā Phalguni in the Tai. S. IV. 4. 10. 1-3 and Tai. Br. I. 5. 1, and III. 1. 1, while in the Vedāṅgajyotiṣa (Rgveda, Verse 25), Viṣṇu Dh. S. (78. 16), Śāṅ. Gṛ. (I. 26. 9, SBE vol. 29 p. 53) Bhaga is the deity of Pūrvā Phalguni. The 4th passage about Saturn being near Viśākhā has been already dealt with under Jupiter. [[P922]]

The above detailed statement about the astronomical passages of the Mahābhārata will induce any unbiassed reader who has no axe to grind that they are hopelessly inconsistent and that no certain chronological conclusion can be drawn therefrom. In the above discussion I have generally not cited the various explanations indulged in by several scholars, as that would have involved me in a very lengthy discourse without any adequate benefit. To me it appears probable that the final redactor of the Mahābhārata had two or more sets of astronomical data about the war before him and without trying to examine and sift them he included them all in his work. The Bhāratasāvitrī probably represents one (and a later) tradition about the positions of the planets at the time of the war. As I hold that either the Mahābhārata passages on the positions of the planets were interpolated at a very late stage or are hopelessly inconsistent I deem it unnecessary to enter upon an examination of the mathematical calculations made by several scholars to find out the date of the Bhārata war from the shifting of the solstices and the position of the planets.

Since only 5046 years have elapsed (in 1945 A. D.) from the beginning of the Kali age and as Kaliyuga extends to 432000 years according to Paurāṇic computations we are just on the threshold of the Kaliyuga and it is beyond one’s comprehension to visualize what will happen towards the end of the vast period of about 427000 years that are still to pass before Kaliyuga ends. It is very small consolation to read in the Purāṇas in a prophetic strain that at the end of that colossal period Viṣṇu will be incarnated as Kalkin in a village Sambhala, will destroy all Mlecchas, śūdra kings and heretics and will establish dharma, so that the Kṛta age will then be ushered in. Here again as in almost all matters there are differences in the legend. The Vāyu (58. 75-90) and the Matsya (144. 50-64) state that it will be Pramati Bhārgava who will be the avatāra of Viṣṇu and uproot the Mlecchas, heretics and śūdra kings, while Vāyu 98. 104-110 and 99. 396-7, Vanaparva 190. 93-97, Bhāgavata XII. 2. 16-23 state that Kalkin will conquer the Mlecchas, will become a universal emperor (cakravartin) of the dharmavijayin type and will start the Kṛta age. In some passages he is called Kalki (nom. of Kalkin) as in Vanaparva 190. 93, Brahma 213. 164, Vāyu 99. 396, Matsya 47. 248, Nṛsiṃha 54. 3; while in others as Kalkiḥ (nom. of Kalki) as in Vāyu 98. 104, Kalki 2. 28, Bhāgavata XII. 2. 16, Matsya 47. 251. In [[P923]] some passages he is said to be the son of a brāhmaṇa Viṣṇuyaśas who will be the head ⁵⁹ of the village called Sambhala (Bhāgavata XII. 2. 16, Viṣṇupurāṇa IV. 24. 26, Agni 16. 8, Nṛsiṃha 54. 3, Kalkipurāṇa 2. 34), while in other passages he is himself styled Viṣṇuyaśas (Vāyu 98. 104, Vanaparva 190. 93, Brahma 213. 164, Viṣṇudharmottara I. 74. 40) ⁶⁰. In some places he is said to have already flourished (Vāyu 98. 111, Matsya 47. 255), in other places the texts employ the future (Vāyu 99. 396, Bhāgavata XII. 2. 16). This last discrepancy is probably due to the fact that the writers sometimes forget their role of prophets. Further, it has to be remembered that according to the Purāṇas the four yugas (and therefore the Kalki avatāra) have been repeated again and again. The Kalki-purāṇa (I. 2. 33 and I. 3. 32-33) states that Kalki was a contemporary of Viśākhayūpa king of Māhiṣmatī, while the Vāyu (99. 312-314), Matsya (272. 4) and Viṣṇu (IV. 24) state that Viśākhayūpa was the 3rd of the Pradyota dynasty that preceded the Śiśunāga dynasty. Though the Kalki-purāṇa several times uses the past tense about Kalki, yet at the very beginning it says (I. 1. 10) that what is narrated is an ākhyāna (story) of the future. It is interesting to note that in the Parnālaparvata-grahanākhyāna ⁶¹ of Jayarāma composed about 1673 A.D. Bahlolkhan, [[P924]] commander-in-chief of the Bijapur army, is made to say to Khawaskhan, the Vazir, as follows, ‘In the Hindu śāstras some say that Kalkin, the 10th avatāra of Viṣṇu will be born and he will destroy the hordes of Yavanas. Shivaji appears to be the first harbinger of that Kalkin’.

Even though the Purāṇas are carried away by their overzeal in condemning the moral and physical decline of the Kali age, almost all of them exhibit no verses about matters forbidden in the Kali age. We have to see when the topic of Kalivarjya attained prominence and what the matters are that were once practised by people without objection and that later on came to be prohibited or condemned.

The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 14. 6-10) condemns the practice of giving all or most of the ancestral property to the eldest son as opposed to śāstras. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 10. 27. 2-6), after referring to the view of some that a woman when being married is given to the whole family of the bridegroom, condemns the practice of niyoga ⁶². Both these practices (of uddhāravibhāga and of niyoga) are among those included in the texts on Kalivarjya. Among the earliest references in the smṛtis to practices once current, but forbidden in the Kali age is a passage of Bṛhaspati quoted by Aparārka p. 97, where niyoga and the numerous secondary sons are said to be impossible owing to the decadence ⁶³ of spiritual power among men of the Dvāpara and Kali ages. Aparārka p. 739 and the D. M. quote a passage of Śaunaka to the effect that sons other than the aurasa or dattaka are not allowed in the Kali age ⁶⁴. Prajāpati (verse 151) refers ⁶⁵ to the ancient practice of offering meat and wine in śrāddhas, but prescribes that these should be eschewed in the Kali age. Vyāsa ⁶⁶ quoted in the Nirṇayasindhu and other works forbids [[P925]] the setting of the three Vedic fires and of resorting to sannyāsa after 4400 years of Kali. The Laghu-Āśvalāyana ⁶⁷ smṛti (21. 14-15) states that the two kinds of sons called Kuṇḍa and Golaka were permitted in former ages and had the saṃskāras performed on them, but are condemned in the Kali age. Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi, it is worth noting, do not quote a single verse about Kalivarjya. On Yaj. III. 30 Viśvarūpa tries to reconcile Parāśara III. 5 (saying that a brāhmaṇa who is learned in the Veda and keeps the sacred Vedic fires becomes free from impurity in a day) with Parāśara III. 8 (that for ten days on impurity due to birth or death the food of that family becomes unpartakable for others). He does not accept the idea that the period of impurity is only one day for a learned man, but explains that Parāśara III. 5 is only an arthavāda meant for glorifying the study of Veda and the keeping of sacred fires. Among later commentators it is stated that the narrowing down of the periods of impurity on the ground of Veda study is forbidden in the Kali age. As this explanation is not offered by Viśvarūpa it is not unreasonable to infer that Viśvarūpa was not aware of the passage on this point quoted from the Adityapurāṇa. Medhātithi ⁶⁸ also (on Manu IX, 112) refers to the opinion of some that the smṛti passages about niyoga and uddhāra-vibhāga were applicable only in bygone ages, since smṛtis are restricted to certain ages (vide Manu I. 85); but he refutes that view and explains Manu I. 85 by saying that the meaning is that the dharmas (i. e. qualities or natures of things) change from age to age as they do from season to season. From this it is clear that he did not accept that certain practices current in one age were forbidden in others. Vijñāneśvara ⁶⁹ quotes a single verse which condemns the practice of niyoga, the giving of a special share to the eldest son and the killing of a cow in a sacrifice as not allowable in the Kali age. [[P926]]

---

[[P927]] That?? the setting of the three Vedic Vedic fires and of resorting to sannyāsa after 4400 years of Kali. The Laghu-Āśvalāyana ⁷⁰ smṛti (21. 14-15) states that the two kinds of sons called Kuṇḍa and Golaka were permitted in former ages and had the saṃskāras performed on them, but are condemned in the Kali age. Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi, it is worth noting, do not quote a single verse about Kalivarjya. On Yāj. III. 30 Viśvarūpa tries to reconcile Parāśara III. 5 (saying that a brāhmaṇa who is learned in the Veda and keeps the sacred Vedic fires becomes free from impurity in a day) with Parāśara III. 8 (that for ten days on impurity due to birth or death the food of that family becomes unpartakable for others). He does not accept the idea that the period of impurity is only one day for a learned man, but explains that Parāśara III. 5 is only an arthavāda meant for glorifying the study of Veda and the keeping of sacred fires. Among later commentators it is stated that the narrowing down of the periods of impurity on the ground of Veda study is forbidden in the Kali age. As this explanation is not offered by Viśvarūpa it is not unreasonable to infer that Viśvarūpa was not aware of the passage on this point quoted from the Adityapurāṇa. Medhātithi ⁷¹ also (on Manu IX. 112) refers to the opinion of some that the smṛti passages about niyoga and uddhāravibhāga were applicable only in bygone ages, since smṛtis are restricted to certain ages (vide Manu I. 85); but he refutes that view and explains Manu I. 85 by saying that the meaning is that the dharmas (i. e. qualities or natures of things) change from age to age as they do from season to season. From this it is clear that he did not accept that certain practices current in one age were forbidden in others. Vijñāneśvara ⁷² quotes a single verse which condemns the practice of niyoga, the giving of a special share to the eldest son and the killing of a cow in a sacrifice as not allowable in the Kali age. That

[[P928]] verse is said by the Sm. C. II. p. 266 to have occurred in the Sangraha (i.e. the work called Smrtisangraha). The Sm. C. quotes a verse of Kratu which forbids four acts in Kali, viz. niyoga, remarriage of a married girl, killing a cow in sacrifices and the taking of a jar ⁷³.

The Naradiya-mahapurana contains four verses about Kalivarjya stating that certain practices which were once allowed are forbidden in the Kali age, viz. sea voyage, the carrying of a jar of water, marrying a girl of a class lower than one’s own, niyoga, killing of an animal in Madhuparka, offering of flesh in sraddhas, the stage of a forest hermit, remarriage of a married girl when the marriage was not consummated, perpetual student-hood, human sacrifice, horse sacrifice, starting on the great journey, the sacrifice of a cow ⁷⁴. Aparārka (pp. 15, 63) quotes one verse and a half from the Brahmapurāṇa about certain Kalivarjyas viz. perpetual student-hood, the carrying of a kamandalu, marriage with a sagotra or sapinda girl, the killing of a cow, human sacrifice, horse sacrifice, drinking intoxicating liquors ⁷⁵. This could not be traced to the Brahmapurana, but the Prayascitta-tattva (p. 520) ex-

[[P929]] pressly states that these were cited from the Brahmapurāṇa in the works of Halayudha, Sūlapāṇi and in the Gṛhastharatnākara (i. e. from about the 12th century onwards). Aparārka (p. 98) quotes another passage from the Brahmapurāṇa [⁷⁶], which condemns remarriage of women, niyoga, independence of women, on the ground that men in the Kali age are sinners. Aparārka (p. 233) quotes two verses from a smrti (without name) the first of which prohibits six acts, viz. killing a cow in sacrifice, niyoga (of husband’s brother), the performance of sattras, taking a water jar, use of wine (in sautrāmaṇī), being an ascetic (of the paramahamsa type) and the second prohibits five, viz. human sacrifice, cow sacrifice, the taking of a kamandalu, niyoga, and the remarriage of a girl whose marriage has not been consummated. Aparārka (p. 233) quotes a passage from the Markandeya recommending the offering of a golden vessel in place of the cow in Madhuparka and stating that Bhrgu laid down that no animal was to be sacrificed in Kali. The Sm. C. (I. p. 12) quotes a Purana passage that ’the remarriage of a married woman, special share to the eldest son, the killing of a cow, niyoga and the taking of a kamandalu—these five are to be avoided in Kali [⁷⁷]. Hemādri and the Sahyadri-khanda state, ‘Agnihotra, the killing of a cow, sannyāsa, offering of meat in śrāddha and raising of a son by the husband’s brother—these five were [⁷⁸] to be avoided in Kali. Hemādri in Dānakhanda quotes a passage from the Garuḍapurāṇa in which seven matters are mentioned as forbidden in Kali, viz. Aśramedha, Gosava, human sacrifice, Rājasūya, remarriage even of a girl whose first marriage was not consummated, the carrying of a kamandalu and procreation of a son on a widow by her husband’s brother. The Smṛtyarthasāra (p. 2) mentions twenty-six Kalivarjyas without expressly citing the name of any work. In the Sm. C., the Caturvargacintāmaṇi of Hemādri (III. part 2 p. 666), the Par. M. I. part 1 pp. 131-137, the Madanapārijāta (pp. 15-16),

[[P930]] Madanaratna (samayoddyota), the Udvāha-tattva (p. 112), the Samaya-mayūkha, the Samayaprakāśa of Mitramiśra (pp. 261-263), the Nirnayasindhu (III, pūrvārdha at end), Bhattoji on Caturvimsati-mata, the Smṛtimuktāphala (varnāśrama p. 13), the Smṛtikaustubha, the Dharma-sindhu (pp. 357–358) and some other works quote long passages from a purana (which in some of them is specified as the Adityapurāṇa) that mentions about 50 Kalivarjyas [⁷⁹]. There is a work called Kalivarjyavinirṇaya or Kalivarjyanirṇaya composed by Damodara elder brother of Nilakanṭha (first half of 17th century A. D.), who in his Samaya mayūkha refers to it. It quotes the Adityapurana, Brahmapurana and other texts that are quoted here from Hemādri and other older digests [⁸⁰].

In the passage quoted the several Kalivarjyas are not arranged on any systematic basis. Here, first of all a few Kalivarjyas that have a bearing on law will be mentioned and then the rest will be taken up one after another in the order in which they appear in the extract and lastly those that do not appear in that extract will also be dealt with. The first verse states that certain actions were discarded by the wise though this was unauthorized (by śruti or smrti) after arriving at a convention among themselves through fear of the loss of dharma (if they were persisted in), because in the Kali age there is absence of good men. The last verse and a half again state that at the beginning of the Kali great men arrived at certain conventions and discarded certain actions in order to guard the people (against harm and sin) and (it is well known) that the conventions of good men are authoritative like Veda [⁸¹].

1. Giving a larger share of ancestral property or the whole of it to the eldest son (this is called jyeṣthāmśa or uddhāra or uddhāravibhāga). Vide pp. 624-631 above for this. [⁸²]

[[P931]] 2. Appointing the husband’s brother (or a sagotra &c.) to raise issue on the wife of a sonless man. This is called niyoga and has been dealt with at length in H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 599-607. It may be added here that in the K. V. N. there is a long discussion on the question whether an elder brother of the deceased could have been appointed to raise issue on his younger brother’s widow and gives it as the opinion of some that he could not be so appointed, but that only a younger brother could be appointed to raise issue on his elder brother’s widow. They rely on the Mit. on Yaj. I. 68 where ‘devara’ is paraphrased as ‘kaniyan bhrāta’. The K. V. N. (folio 5b and 6a) relying on Manu IX. 62 and the words of the Mit. on Yāj. II. 127 (where Manu IX. 69-70 are cited and explained as ‘devaras-tasya jyeṣthaḥ kanistho vā’) holds that any brother whether elder or younger than the husband could be appointed.

3. The admission of several kinds of secondary sons other than the aurasa and the dattaka. For this vide above pp. 647-653.

4. Remarriage of widows. This subject has been dealt with in H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 608 ff. Some texts such as Vas. 17. 74 make a distinction between the remarriage of a woman whose marriage was not consummated and of a woman whose marriage was consummated, remarriage being allowed in the first case but not in the 2nd. The Kalivarjya texts forbid remarriage in both cases. [⁸³]

5. Intercaste marriages. This subject has been treated of in H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 447-451. It has been shown by me above (pp. 599-600) that the decisions in 46 Bom. 871 and 55 Bom. 1 are based upon a misunderstanding about the real views of Nilakaṇṭha.

6. Marriage with sagotra girls or with girls that are sapiṇdas of the mother (such as the maternal uncle’s daughter). Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 452-478 for prohibition on the ground

[[P932]] of sapiṇda relationship, pp. 497 ff. for prohibition on the ground of gotra and pp. 458-463 for marriage with maternal uncle’s daughter. The custom of marrying the maternal uncle’s daughter has persisted to this day in many castes in spite of the inclusion of it among Kalivarjyas. An inscription at Nāgārjunikoṇḍa (3rd century A. D.) shows that Vīrapuruṣadatta, son of Śāntamūla, married three daughters of his paternal aunts (E. I. vol. XX. p. 1).

7. Slaying a brahmana who comes as an atatāyin in a properly conducted fight. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II, pp. 148-151 and p. 517 above for this subject.

8. Awarding of fines against witnesses who depose in disputes between father and son. [⁸⁴] It has already been seen (p. 299) how ordinarily suits between husband and wife, father and son were not encouraged in ancient India. But when such a dispute came to the king’s notice he could take action suo motu, as Nār. includes ‘pitāputra-vivāda’ among the miscellaneous matters (prakirṇaka verse 3) which the king was to set in motion. Even in ancient times this rule must not have been strictly enforced. As time went on and separation of father and son became frequent the rule must have appeared to be unreasonable. Vide Mit. on Yaj. II. 32 referred to above in n. 418, Yaj. II. 239 (= Matsya 227. 198) prescribed a fine of 3 paṇas for those who (instead of composing the quarrel between father and son and being able to do so) undertake to be witnesses. Viśvarūpa read ‘a fine of two hundred paṇas’. Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 120 prescribes a fine of ten paṇas. This shows that at the time of the Matsyapurāṇa this act was probably not included among Kalivarjyas.

9. Taking (or stealing) of corn even from one whose actions are lowly (i. e. even from a sūdra), when a brahmana has been without food for six times (i. e. three days). Gaut. 18. 28-29, Manu XI. 16 and Yāj. II. 43 [^1.1.4] provide that when a brahmana cannot earn his maintenance in a season of distress even in any one of the ways indicated in Yāj. III. 42 and has been hungry for three days he may steal or take away one day’s food even from a low person such as a sūdra. It should be noted that this Kalivarjya text pointedly repeats the very

[[P933]] words of Manu XI. 16 ‘bhaktāni ṣad-anaśnatā … hartavyam hīnakarmaṇaḥ’). In ancient times theft of such a minor nature was permitted when the brāhmaṇa was famished. But later times took a stricter view of the matter.

10. The admission to intercourse of a brāhmaṇa who undertakes a sea voyage, even though he may have performed the penance prescribed for the same’ (1. 7 in the appendix). Here the word used is ‘dvijasya’. It may mean either any person of the three higher castes or a brahmana. If a man who has made a sea voyage took prāyaścitta he expiated only the sin, but did not become fit, according to this dictum, to be associated with by others [^1.2.8]. Whether the Vedic Aryans knew the sea has been doubted [[^1.2.8]]. Vide ‘Vedic Index’ on ‘samudra’, vol. II. pp. 431-433. The Nirukta II, 10 refers to the fact that a doubt arises whether the word ‘samudra’ in a particular vedic verse refers to the sea or to the sky. In some verses as in Rg. X. 98, 5 ‘he discharged divine rain waters from the higher to the lower samudra’ both the meanings of ‘samudra’ (viz. sea, sky) are pointedly brought out. Vide also Rg. VII. 6. 7 (a samudrad-avarādā parasmāt). In Rg. VII. 95. 2 Sarasvati is mentioned as going from the mountains to the sea. In Rg. X. 136. 5 the two seas, Eastern and Western, are mentioned (ubhau samudrāvā kṣeti yaśca pūrva utāparaḥ). In Rg. VIII. 6. 4 it is said, ‘all people bend down to him, as the sindhus (rivers) flow to the Ocean,’ Rg. I. 116. 4-5, X. 39. 4 and X. 143. 5 refer to the story that Aśvins saved Bhujyu from the waters of the sea [[^1.2.8]]. ⁸⁵ The Atharvaveda VIII. 2. 25 [^1.2.8] refers to eastern sea and northern sea. There is no doubt that in the Brāhmaṇas the sea was well-known. The Tai. Br. II. 2. 5. 6 remarks, ’there is no end to desire and also to samudra’ (neva hi kāmasyāntosti na samudrasya). The Ait. Br. (40. 2) remarks ‘just as the sea stands surrounding the earth’ (tābhi rājānam parigṛhya tiṣṭhati samudra iva bhūmim).

It has already been seen that among the five practices peculiar to the north the Baud. Dh. S. (I 1. 22) [^1.2.8] enumerates sea voyage (samudra-saṃyāna) as the last and condemns it [[^1.2.8]]. Baud. (II. 1. 51) places sea voyage at the head of grave sins (pataniyāni) along with misappropriating a brāhmaṇa’s wealth kept as a deposit.

[[P934]] The Mit. on Yaj. III. 288 quotes the sutra of Baud. Manu (III. 158 and 166-167) provides that a brāhmaṇa who had been on a sea voyage was sinful and was not to be invited at a śrāddha. But it is clear that Manu does not say that such a brāhmaṇa altogether loses caste or that he becomes altogether unfit to be associated with; all that Manu provides is that such a brāhmaṇa became unfit for invitation at a śrāddha. The Auśanasasmṛti (IV. pp. 525-526) declares that those who sell the Veda, who marry a widow, who undertake a sea voyage are patita and are not to be invited at a śrāddha. These passages show that the prohibition against sea voyage affected only brāhmaṇas and even then they did not apparently become altogether unfit to be associated with.

That brāhmaṇas crossed the ocean and went to such distant countries as Siam, Cambodia, Java, Sumatra and Borneo can be easily proved ⁸⁶. E. I. vol. 17 p. 314 gives references to inscriptions from Borneo to show that brāhmaṇas from India migrated to that country about 400 A. D. That kings and merchants undertook sea voyages is also clear from several considerations. The Bāveru Jātaka (vol. III No. 339, Fausböll) tells us that merchants from Benares went to Babylon in order to sell Indian goods. The ‘Questions of Milinda’ S. B. E. vol. 36 p. 269 refers to a ship-owner voyaging by sea to distant countries ⁸⁷.

The Rājatarangiṇī refers to the sea voyage of an envoy of king Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir to Ceylon (IV. 503-506). Manu VIII. 157 prescribes that the king should allow that rate of interest which those who are adepts in sea voyages and land journeys and who understand what is required to be the interest at certain times and in certain

[[P935]] places determine to be the proper one. Yāj. II. 38 provides for very high interest (20 per cent per month) from those who engage in trade by sea. Nār. IV. 179 says that a trader (samudra-vaṇik) who makes sea voyages is not a proper witness.

The Vāyu (45. 78-80) and other purāṇas state that Bhāratavarṣa ⁸⁸ has nine divisions called dvīpas, all of which are separated from each other by the sea and are not easily accessible, that Jambudvīpa (India proper) is the 9th dvīpa and the other eight are Indra, Kaśeru, Tāmraparṇi, Gabhastimat, Nāga, Saumya (Siam ?), Gandharva, Vāruṇa (Borneo ?). Therefore Bhāratavarṣa according to Paurāṇic Geography included modern India and also Greater India. None of the ancient works at least says anything against sūdras undertaking sea voyages; but now even sūdras, probably in their desire to emulate the brāhmaṇa and rise higher in social esteem, think that sea voyage is forbidden to them also.

When during the latter half of the 19th century some brāhmaṇas went to England on a political mission or for study and returned to India, the question whether after taking the appropriate prāyaścitta those brāhmaṇas could be associated with fully as before was referred to many orthodox and learned Paṇḍits (such as the late Tāranātha Tarkavācaspati) and it is creditable to the Paṇḍits and gratifying to note that many of them came to the conclusion that they could be associated with by others.

The two principal texts referred to were those of the Bṛhan-Nāradapurāṇa (note 1798 above) and the one from the Adityapurāṇa translated at the head of this particular Kalivarjya. Very interesting and hairsplitting arguments and explanations were advanced by the learned Paṇḍits in 1872. Some of them may be noted here.

As regards the Nāradīya passage, it is argued that only that sea voyage is forbidden in the Kali, which was a righteous act (dharma) in former times.

[[P936]] In Parāśara-smṛti XII. 58 the following prāyaścitta ⁸⁹ is prescribed for brāhmaṇa murder: ’the sinner should be directed to perform the penance of going to the setu on the ocean; he should beg for alms on the road to the setu from men of the four classes that are free from improper acts, should walk barefooted and without umbrella, should declare his sin in all towns, villages and hamlets of cowherds on the way while resting there or in forests, sacred places and rivers and after reaching the sea and on seeing the setu, 100 yojanas long and 10 yojanas broad, constructed with heaps of stones at the bidding of Rāma by Nala he will get rid of the sin of brahmana murder’. Here brahmana murder being a most heinous offence it cannot be supposed that a mere sight of the setu from land would absolve the sinner and the words about the length and breadth of the setu would be otherwise meaningless. Therefore what is meant is that he must undertake a sea-voyage and go along the whole length and breadth of the setu in a vessel.

Such a voyage was religious conduct in former ages, but in Kali this is forbidden. The word ‘holding a kamandalu’ (which also was prescribed as dharma in former ages) conveys that a similar or analogous practice is referred to in the immediately preceding words. The words ‘dvijasyābdhau &c.’ are to be interpreted as follows: ’nauyātuḥ’ is the genitive singular of ’nauyātṛ’. The affix ’tṛ’ is not the ordinary ’tṛ’ but it is ’tṛn’ used in the sense of ‘one who habitually does a thing’, according to Pāṇini III. 2. 134-135. ⁹⁰ Therefore the words of the Adityapurāṇa apply only to a dvija who habitually engages in a sea voyage either as a trader or as a helmsman or sailor. When Nārada (Dāyabhāga 21) states that even an aurasa son who is hostile to his father or who is patita (guilty of one of the five great sins) or is impotent or is ‘apapātrita’ he does not get a share of ancestral wealth, the Vyavahāramayūkha explains the last word as ‘one who goes to another continent (other than Jambudvīpa) through mid ocean by means of a vessel for purposes of trade’ and relies on this passage (dvijasyābdhau &c.) for support. So according to the author of the V. Mayūkha only that dvija who constantly undertakes sea voyages for trade is here declared to be unfit for social intercourse though he may have taken a prāyaścitta, and not one who casually or once in a life undertakes a sea voyage. No text prescribes a prāyaścitta merely for going in a vessel on the sea. If that were intended in this passage the text would have read differently viz. ‘samudre naugamanābhāve &c.’ Even śiṣṭas have been

[[P937]] crossing the sea to Ceylon for purposes of trade. In dramas like the Ratnāvalī (where the kañcukin Bābhravya undertakes a sea voyage and a merchant from Kauśāmbī is said to have gone to Ceylon) and in romances like the Daśakumāracarita frequent references are made to sea voyages to Ceylon and other countries. What is aimed to be hit when prāyaścitta for sea voyage is prescribed is the fact that on such voyages a man may give up for long such daily duties as the performance of sandhyā and may have come in very close contact with mlecchas as regards food etc. If he has done these two, then only he is not fit for intercourse even though he may have undergone a prāyaścitta. If he performs his daily duties wherever he may dwell and does not come in too close a contact with mlecchas he may have to perform no prāyaścitta, much less would he become unfit for social intercourse. The view of Medhātithi on Manu II. 23 that any country by itself is not unfit for the residence of an ārya, that if mlecchas overrun a country in India and permanently reside there it may become a mlecchadeśa, that even a mleccha country, if it be conquered by an Indian king and if the system of the four varṇas be introduced therein, would be a fit one for the performance of Vedic sacrifices, has already been noted (in H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 16). It has to be remembered that the Ādiparva (85. 34) states that mlecchas and yavanas sprang from Anu and Turvasu, sons of Yayāti. The Sabhāparva notes that Bhīma made mlecchas dwelling beyond the seas and in Anūpa bring tribute (30. 25-27) and that mlecchas came to see the Rājasūya sacrifice along with Bhagadatta of Prāgjyotiṣa (Sabhā 34. 9-10). The following propositions follow from the above discussion: (1) As the word ‘dvija’ is used, a śūdra or a person of the mixed castes (saṅkīrṇa-jāti) does not become unfit for social intercourse even by habitually undertaking a sea voyage, but he may have to undergo a prāyaścitta; (2) a dvija who casually undertakes a sea voyage to a place outside India either at the king’s bidding or for any other purpose has to undergo a prāyaścitta, but if he does so he becomes fit for social intercourse; (3) a dvija habitually undertaking a sea voyage for trade or as a sailor would become unfit for intercourse even after undergoing prāyaścitta. Manu IX. 314, when enlarging upon the devastating power of brāhmaṇas, mentions that the sea was made undrinkable by brāhmaṇas, which, according to Medhātithi and other commentators, has in view the story in Śānti 343. 60-61. It is difficult to say whether this story had any influence in leading to the prohibition against sea voyage.

[[P938]] The Smṛtikaustubha explains that ‘samudrayātrā’ means ’tirthayātrā’ i. e. pilgrimage to holy places beyond the sea and that is forbidden here. But this seems to be wrong, as stated by Kṛṣṇabhaṭṭa on the Nir. S. The latter says that expiation is to be undergone only where a sea voyage is undertaken from worldly motives, but where a sea voyage has to be undertaken for reaching a holy place like the Śaṅkhoddhāra-tīrtha, it is an inseparable part of the pilgrimage and therefore there is no necessity to undergo a prāyaścitta ⁹¹.

11. ‘The initiation for a sattra’ (1. 8). Sattras were sacrificial sessions the duration of which varied from 12 days to a year, 12 years or even more. Only brāhmaṇas could perform them (Jai. VI. 6. 16-23). Acc. to Śabara on Jai. VI. 2. 1 persons who engaged in them must not be less than 17 nor more than 24. All of them were both sacrificers (yajamāna) as well as priests. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 1239-1246 for sattras. The prohibition against engaging in sattras is a clear indication that people had become tired of the ancient Vedic sacrifices, of the great demands they made on time and wealth and had begun to prefer other and easier modes of worship.

12. ‘Carrying a jar of water’ (1. 8). The Baud. Dh. S. I. 4 devotes numerous ⁹² sūtras (1-27) to the subject of carrying an earthen or wooden jar full of water. Every snātaka was always to carry a jar of water from which he was to take water for śauca śauca. He was to wash it with water and rub it with his hand. This was declared to be equal to paryagnikaraṇa paryagnikaraṇa (encircling with fire for purification, vide H. Dh, vol. II p. 1120 n. 2501). He was not to go to another’s house or to the village boundary or on a journey without the jar. Vas. 12. 14-17, Manu IV. 36, Yāj. I. 133 contain similar provisions. Viśvarūpa explains that the snātaka snātaka himself need not carry it and that it may be carried for him by another. It was an encumbrance, gave rise to unhygienic and unclean habits and so gradually it came to be dispensed with. This practice was regularised by declaring that in the Kali age a water jar was [[P939]] not to be carried at all. The Madanapārijāta Madanapārijāta (p. 16) explained that ‘kamandaluvidhāraṇa’ refers to perpetual studenthood, but this explanation cannot be accepted, because in the Nāradīyapurāṇa Nāradīyapurāṇa (note 1798 above) both are mentioned separately. The K. V. N. (folio 3a) notes that some explained ‘kamandaluvidhāraṇam’ as standing for ‘dirghakālam brahmacaryam’ (studenthood for long periods).

13. ‘Starting on the Great Journey’ (1. 9). The Bṛhan Nāradīya-purāṇa (pārvārdha 24. 16) also forbids this. According to Manu VI. 31 and Yāj. III. 55 a forest hermit, when he suffered from an incurable disease and could not perform the duties of his order, was allowed to start towards the north-east on the Great Journey (mahāprasthāna mahāprasthāna) till the body fell down to rise no more. Similarly, a man guilty of brāhmaṇa brāhmaṇa murder was allowed to meet death at the hands of archers or to throw himself head foremost into fire. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 924-928 for Mahāprasthānagamana. Aparārka ⁹³ (pp. 877-879) quotes long passages from the Ādipurāṇa Ādipurāṇa to the effect that if a man suffering from an incurable disease starts on the Great Journey in the Himalaya or commits suicide by entering fire or water or by falling from a precipice, not only does he not incur sin, but on the contrary he goes to heaven. It is rather inconsistent that the Ādipurāṇa (or Ādityapurāṇa) should in one place extol the starting on the Great Journey and in another place should forbid it in the Kali age. The K. V. N. cites the instance of the Pāṇḍavas that are said to have started on the Great Journey. This makes one suspicious about the authenticity of the passages on Kalivarjya quoted from the Ādipurāṇa by some and from Ādityapurāṇa by others.

14. ‘The killing of a cow in the sacrifice called Gosava Gosava’ (1. 9).

There were various occasions on which in ancient times a [[P939]] cow was sacrificed. The Anubandhyā cow killed at the end of the Udayanīyā iṣṭi in Agniṣṭoma has been referred to above (on p. 627 n. 1196). In the Madhuparka which was offered to an honoured guest a cow was either killed or let loose at the desire of the guest. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 543-545. A cow was killed in one of the three or four aṣṭakā śrāddhas (vide Khādira gṛ. III. 4. 1, Gobhila gṛ. II. 10. 16). Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 16. 25 states that if cow’s flesh is offered in śrāddha for the pitṛs, the latter are gratified for one year. There was a sacrifice called Gosava or Gomedha, that was an Ukthya in which the fees were ten thousand cows and which according to some could be performed only by a vaiśya (Kāt. Śr. 22. 11. ⁹⁴ 3-8). A bull was killed as an offering in the rite called śūlagava (vide H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 831-832). As flesh-eating came to be looked down upon, cow sacrifice became most abhorrent and Kalivarjya texts only register a prohibition which had been acted upon centuries before.

15. ‘The employment of cups of wine in the Sautrāmaṇi’ (1. 10).

The Sautrāmaṇi is not a soma sacrifice but it is a combination of an iṣṭi with an animal sacrifice. Its peculiar characteristic was the offering of surā in cups. In modern times milk is offered in its place and Āp. Śr. allowed it even in ancient times ⁹⁵. It was included among the seven haviryajñas by Gaut. (VIII. 20). At the end of the Rājasūya it was performed or in Agnicayana or for one who suffered vomiting or purging from the excessive drinking of soma. For sautrāmaṇi and the preparation of surā in it, vide H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 1225-1228. Bhaṭṭoji (in com. on Caturviṃsati-mata p. 53) and the Nirṇayasindhu construe this to mean ‘having social intercourse with one who employs surā in Sautrāmaṇi’ but this is not satisfactory. The Dharmasindhu explains as above (III. pūrvārdha p. 357) ⁹⁶. [[P940]]

16. ‘The licking of the Agnihotrahavaṇī and the use of it even after it was licked’ (1. 11). In the Agnihotra the sruva ladle is held in the right hand and the sruc called agnihotra havaṇī is held in the left and the milk is poured into the latter from the milk pot with sruva. After the Agnihotra homa is offered, the agnihotrahavaṇī is licked twice in order to take out the remnants of the milk and after wiping it with darbha blades it is used again. Ordinarily a vessel when it is once licked by a man cannot be used again in a religious rite unless proper purification is resorted to. But this did not apply to the Agnihotrahavaṇī and camascus of soma. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II p. 1002, n. 2663 for agnihotrahavaṇī, p. 1005 for its licking and p. 1177 (n. 2598) for the drinking of soma from the same camasa by the several priests. The licking of the agnihotrahavaṇī and its use constitute really the subject of the prohibition ⁹⁷.

17. ‘Entering on the stage of forest hermit as laid down in the texts about it’ (1. 12). Gaut. III. 25-34, Āp. Dh. S. (II. 9. 21. 18 to II. 9. 23. 2), Manu VI. 1-32, Vas. IX. 1-11, Yāj. III. 45-55 lay down elaborate rules for the stage of forest hermits. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 917-929 for a description and remarks on sannyāsa to be made later on.

18. ‘The narrowing down or curtailment of the periods of impurity depending upon the Vedic learning and the mode of life of a person’ (1. 13). ‘Agha’ means ‘āśauca’; ‘vitta’ (mode of life) refers to tending sacred fires or maintaining oneself in the way described by Manu IV, 7-10. The general rule about the period of impurity for a brāhmaṇa on the death of a sapiṇda was stated by Gaut. 14. 1, Manu V. 59 and 83 to be that it was ten days, and Aṅgiras quoted by the Mit. on Yāj. III. 22 prescribes impurity for ten days for all varṇas, but Manu V. 59 also spoke of the period being four days, three days or one day, which, acc. to the Mit, on Yāj. III. 28–29, refers respectively to kumbhīdhānya, one who has collected food for three days or one who collects nothing for the morrow. Dakṣa VI. 6 and Para-[[P941]]śara ⁹⁸ III. 5 both state that a brāhmaṇa who keeps the Vedic fires and has studied the Veda becomes free from impurity in a day, one who has only studied the Veda (but does not tend sacred fires) becomes free in three days, while one devoid of both becomes free after ten days. Aparārka (p. 894) and Haradatta on Gaut. 14. 1 quote Bṛhaspati to the same effect. The Mit. remarks ⁹⁹ (on Yāj. III. 28-29) that the curtailment of the period of impurity is not absolute but is restricted only to certain special matters viz. the receiving of gifts, the performance of Agnihotra, the study of the Veda and such matters in which distress would be caused if the period were not curtailed. This explanation clearly proves that Vijñāneśvara (end of 11th century) was not aware of the prohibition of the curtailment of the periods of impurity or treated it with scant respect. The curtailment of the period of impurity was laid down probably because curtailment led to confusion, since a person may claim to be learned, while his neighbours may not concede that claim.

19. ‘Prescribing death as the penance for brāhmaṇas’. (1. 14).

Manu XI. 89 provides that if a person intentionally murders a brāhmaṇa there is no expiation for it. Manu XI. 90 prescribes death by drinking boiling wine for the sin of drinking surā, while Manu XI. 146 provides ¹⁰⁰ that if a man knowingly drinks wine there is no expiation for it, but only death. The Viṣṇu dharmasūtra (chap. 34) states that incest with the mother, daughter or daughter-in-law is atipātaka, such sinners have to [[P942]] enter fire and there is no other penance for this sin. Vide Gaut. 21. 7 also. Some smṛtis held that there was no prāyascitta for certain grave sins except falling from a precipice or into fire. As a brāhmaṇa’s person became more and more sacred with the march of time, death ceased to be a penance for a brāhmaṇa sinner, however grave the sin might be. But this did not apply to a kṣatriya or any one else (other than a brāhmaṇa).

20. ‘Pollution through contact with a sinner’ (1. 15). Manu XI. 180 (Śānti 165. 37 = Baud. Dh, S, II. 1. 88) ¹⁰¹, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 35. 2-5 provide that if a person continues for one year in close association (saṃsarga) with one guilty of the grave sins (enumerated in Manu XI. 54), in respect of occupying the same conveyance or seat with him or dining in the same row with him he becomes patita; but he becomes patita immediately if he officiates as a priest for such a sinner or performs his upanayana for teaching him the sacred Gāyatri and the Veda or if he enters into a matrimonial alliance with him. Parāśara (I. 25-26) states that in the Kṛta age a person became patita by speaking with a patita, in Tretā by seeing him, in Dvāpara by partaking of food prepared in his house, but in Kali by actually committing a (sinful) deed and that when a grave sin was committed by a man, in the Kṛta age the whole district in which he lived was to be abandoned, in Tretā the village, in Dvāpara his family alone and in Kali only the perpetrator ¹⁰². Parāśara (XII. 79) no doubt ¹⁰³ says that ‘sins (i. e, pollutions are caused) are transferred, as a drop of oil (spreads) on water, by sitting or sleeping together or by using the same conveyance, by speaking with or by dining in the same row with a sinner’; but this only means that to associate with a sinner is bad, but it does not mean that to associate with a patita immediately makes the associator himself a patita. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 261 quotes Devala ¹⁰⁴ and Vṛddha-Bṛhaspati to the effect [[P943]] that saṃsarga arises in nine ways viz. by talk, by touch, by breathing the same air (i. e. by being in the same room), by being in the same conveyance or on the same seat or bed, by dining in the same row, by being a sinner’s priest or Vedic teacher or entering into matrimonial alliance with him. The Par. M. says that Parāśara held the view that there was no pātitya by the various kinds of contact in Kali and so provided no prāyaścitta for saṃsarga. The Nirṇayasindhu ¹⁰⁵ and Bhaṭṭoji make similar remarks. The Udvāhatattva says that Parāśara I. 25 is to be interpreted in this way that merely speaking or touching a patita or receiving money from him does not make another liable to any prāyaścitta, but that if the association with a patita goes quite beyond these, then sin may be incurred by association. So almost all the digests are agreed that the rigour of the very strict rules about saṃsarga in Manu and Baud. was modified by declaring that speech with or sight of a sinner involved no sin in Kali ¹⁰⁶.

21. ‘Undergoing (secret) expiation for the grave sins (mahāpātakas) except theft’ (1. 15). Hārīta (q. by Par. M. II. ¹⁰⁷ part 2, p. 153) prescribes secret expiation for a brāhmaṇa who has studied dharmaśāstra and committed a sin without anyone knowing it. Gaut. (chap. 24) prescribes certain expiations to be undergone secretly (without any third person knowing of such performance) for even mahāpātakas such as brāhmaṇa murder, drinking surā, incest and theft of gold. Vas. (chap. 25) also does the same and states (25. 2) that only those who have kept the sacred Vedic fires, who are disciplined and old or learned are entitled to secret expiations for sins and not other people. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. 55 deals with secret expiations. Parāśara IX. 61 (last verse) laid down ¹⁰⁸ the general rule that one should openly [[P944]] declare one’s sin. The Kalivarjya text provides that secret expiation is allowed as regards only theft among the mahāpātakas in the Kali age, though in earlier ages it was allowed as to other mahāpātakas also. The Nirṇayasindhu says that secret expiation is allowed only to brāhmaṇas. According to the Dharmasindhu, in the Kali age if a man is guilty of the murder of a brāhmaṇa or of other mahāpātakas he does not avoid the consequences of falling into Hell when he undergoes an expiation but he becomes only fit for social intercourse, while as regards theft of gold (a mahāpātaka) by undergoing prāyaścitta he avoids the fall into hell and also becomes fit for social intercourse. The Kalivarjyavinirṇaya appears to hold that all secret expiations are forbidden in Kali ¹⁰⁹.

22. ‘The act of offering an animal with the recital of Vedic mantras to the bridegroom, to a guest and in honour of pitṛs’ (1. 16). ¹¹⁰ Madhuparka was offered in ancient times on several occasions and to several persons such as to ṛtviks at sacrifices, to the king, to a snātaka, to one’s ācārya, father-in-law, paternal or maternal colla uncle and to a bridegroom. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 542-546 for details about Madhuparka. Originally a cow or a bull was killed for an honoured guest, later on when the cow came to be extremely sacred the flesh of some other animal was offered; when flesh-eating itself came to be looked down upon then only pāyasa and other vegetarian eatables came to be prescribed. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 777-782 on flesh-eating. This half line forbids the offering of flesh to a bridegroom or to an honoured guest (in madhuparka) and the feeding of [[P945]] brāhmaṇas brāhmaṇas with flesh at śrāddhas. Comparatively so late a writer as Yāj. (I. 258-259) extols the high gratification that the Manes feel when flesh of various animals is offered in śrāddhas. This one prohibition includes in itself several prohibitions that are separately mentioned in other texts such as ‘govadha’ (in notes 1797 and 1799), the killing of an animal in a Madhuparka (in n. 1798), ‘gavālambha’ and ‘palapaitṛka’ (in note 1802). It is noteworthy that even so late as the first half of the 17th century Viśvanātha, a great logician, takes up the cudgels on behalf of flesh-eating by brāhmaṇas in sacrifices, śrāddha, madhuparka, in danger to life and when ordered by a brāhmaṇa and charges those who totally forbid flesh-eating with being the followers of the doctrines of Bauddhas, while the latter at the same time prescribe expiations for even murderers of brāhmaṇas through greed of money and marry their maternal uncle’s daughters or other sapiṇdas of their mother, though both of these latter are forbidden by the Kalivarjya texts ¹¹¹.

23. ‘Association with those that are guilty of intercourse with women who are not of the same varṇa, even though the former may have undergone proper expiation for the lapse’ (1. 18). There was great divergence of views as regards the prāyaścitta prāyaścitta for adultery by a male with a female of the same class, of a higher class or of a lower class. Further the ancient sūtras were rather hard on the guilty parties, the harsh rules being relaxed by later smṛti writers. For example, Gaut. 23. 14-15 and Vas. 21. 1-3 prescribe for a male of a lower caste having intercourse with a woman of a higher caste death in various ways. If a brāhmaṇa had sexual intercourse with a cāṇḍāla or śvapāka woman Parāśara (X. 5–7) prescribes that he has to undergo a fast for three days, tonsure of the head together with the top knot, three Prājāpatyas, Brahmakūrca, feeding brāhmaṇas, constant recital of the Gāyatri, gift of two pairs of cows and then he becomes pure, while a śūdra doing the same had to undergo the expiation of one Prājāpatya and had to make [[P946]] a gift of two cows. If a person of a low caste has intercourse with a woman of a higher caste ( e. g. a śūdra has intercourse with a brāhmaṇa woman) Saṃvarta (verses 166-167) prescribes the expiation of subsisting for a month on cow’s urine and yāvaka (barley gruel) for him. If a brāhmaṇa commits adultery with a śūdra or cāṇḍāla woman Saṃvarta (verses 169-170) prescribes the expiation of cāndrāyaṇa, while Parāśara (X. 17-20) prescribes a far more severe expiation. The present text prescribes that, even after undergoing expiation, men guilty of intercourse with women of castes other than their own cannot be allowed to have social intercourse with their castemen. The Dharmasindhu ¹¹² says that śūdras that have intercourse with brāhmaṇa or other women of a higher caste are hereby declared to be unfit for social intercourse even after they undergo expiation.

gift of two cows. If a person of a low caste has intercourse with a woman of a higher caste (e.g. a śūdra has intercourse with a brāhmaṇa woman) Saṃvarta (verses 166-167) prescribes the expiation of subsisting for a month on cow’s urine and yāvaka (barley gruel) for him. If a brāhmaṇa commits adultery with a śūdra or cāṇḍāla woman Saṃvarta (verses 169-170) prescribes the expiation of cāndrāyaṇa, while Parāśara (X. 17-20) prescribes a far more severe expiation. The present text prescribes that, even after undergoing expiation, men guilty of intercourse with women of castes other than their own cannot be allowed to have social intercourse with their castemen. The Dharmasindhu ¹¹² says that śūdras that have intercourse with brāhmaṇa or other women of a higher caste are hereby declared to be unfit for social intercourse even after they undergo expiation.

24. ‘Abandonment of a mother (or other woman who is to be honoured owing to relationship) because she has had sexual intercourse with one of low class’ (1. 19).

The provisions of the sūtras and smṛtis on the subject of expiation for adultery by women varied from time to time. Gaut. 23. 14 and Manu VIII. 371 prescribe that a woman who has intercourse with a man of low caste is to be punished by the king with being devoured by dogs. But other smṛtis and Manu himself (XI. 177) are not so harsh, but are rather humane in their treatment of adulteresses. Manu XI. 176 says that the husband should keep confined to one apartment his corrupt wife and compel her to perform the expiation which is prescribed for males in cases of adultery. Manu XI. 59 and Yāj. III. 235 regard adultery by a male (pāradārya) as an upapātaka and Manu XI. 117 and Yāj. III. 265 prescribe cāndrāyaṇa as an expiation for all upapātakas. Vas. XXI. 12 prescribes that the wives of men of the three higher castes who are guilty of adultery with a śūdra may be purified by an expiation if no child is born of the intercourse but not otherwise. Yāj. I. 72 provides that a woman becomes free from the taint of adultery when she has her monthly illness after the adultery but if she conceives in adulterous intercourse she may be abandoned. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 72 states that both Yāj. and Vas. are to be [[P947]] understood in the same sense and abandonment does not mean driving out of the house but only not allowing her to participate in religious acts and not having sexual intercourse with her. Vas. XXI. 10 states that only four kinds of women are to be abandoned, viz. one who has intercourse with the husband’s pupil or with the husband’s guru, one who attempts to kill her husband or one who commits adultery with a man of a degraded caste. Yāj. (III. 296–7) provides that to women that are patita the same rules apply as to men, but they should be given food, raiment and protection and that intercourse with a man of low caste is one of the three gravest sins for women. Vide Mit. on Yāj. III. 297. The present text states that a woman (such as a mother) who is entitled to honour from a person because of her relationship (as mother, elder sister etc.) is not to be abandoned and cast on the street by him, although she may be guilty of adultery with a degraded or low caste man, in spite of Vas. XXI. 10 and other texts (such as Br.). ¹¹³ That is, this text was more humane to such women than ancient texts. Kṛṣṇabhaṭṭa explains that ‘gurustriyāḥ’ means ‘of a brāhmaṇa woman’. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 571-573 for further remarks on adulterous women. Āp. Dh, S. I. 10. 28. 9 requires the son always to serve and wait upon the mother even though she may be patita. Atri ¹¹⁴ (195-196) and Devala (50-51) contain two verses (almost in the same words) which are lax as compared with other ancient texts. They say: ‘If a woman conceives through intercourse with a male who is not of her caste, she becomes impure till her delivery. When she is delivered or she has her monthly illness after the intercourse she becomes like pure gold’. Atri (197-198) further provides that ‘whether a woman willingly has sexual intercourse or is deceived or is enjoyed against her will or in secret, she should not be abandoned; one should wait till the monthly illness and she becomes purified by that illness’. This comparative laxity of [[P948]] the later smṛtis of Devala and Atri is remedied by this Kalivarjya text which forbids abandonment of only such women as the mother, but allows the abandonment of others when guilty of intercourse with a male of low caste. Devala prescribes expiation by sāntapana in the case of those women that are raped by mlecchas and conceive (verses 47-49). Vide also Atri 201-202. The Sm. Kau. restricts this half verse to the mother alone. Parāśara (X. 24-25) prescribes that if a woman be raped once she becomes free from pollution by undergoing Prājāpatya after she has her monthly illness and in other cases of rape she has to undergo Sāntapana.

25. ‘Sacrificing one’s life for the sake of another’ (1. 20). The Viṣṇu Dh. S. III. 45 states ¹¹⁵ that those who are killed in saving the life of a cow, a brāhmaṇa, the king, a friend, one’s wealth and one’s wife go to heaven and XVI. 18 provides that even those (untouchables) who are outside (the pale of the four varṇas) and sacrifice their life for brāhmaṇas, for cows and for women and children attain heaven. The Adityapurāṇa quoted in Rājadharma-kāṇḍa (p. 91) has a similar verse. The Samaya mayūkha and Bhaṭṭoji quote a smṛti, ‘one should at once sacrifice one’s life for cows and brāhmaṇas.’ ¹¹⁶ This text forbids self-sacrifice of one’s life simply for the promised reward of heaven in the cases specified. The K. V. N. (folio 9b) offers two more (rather far-fetched) explanations of this phrase, one of which is offering one’s services as a serf to another. This is prohibited to members of the three twice-born classes in Kali, but not to the śūdras, acc. to K. V. N.

26. ‘Offering (of food) to another that remains after one has partaken of it’ (1. 20). In the Madhuparka the honoured guest used to partake of a part of the offering of honey, milk [[P949]] and curds and was to give the remainder to a brāhmaṇa (or a son or a younger brother). This is prohibited by this Kalivarjya text. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 544 for this practice. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 1. 4. 1-6) provides that the pupil may partake of the leavings of his teacher’s food, but the teacher should not give him honey or meat or other food which will be opposed to the observances of a Vedic student. The Nirṇayasindhu reads ‘uddiṣṭasyāpi varjanam’ ¹¹⁷, which means ’not accepting what has been donated,’ Yāj, I. 213 says that if a person worthy of accepting a gift does not keep it for himself (but passes it on to others), he secures the highest worlds obtained by those who make generous gifts. Bhaṭṭoji gives another explanation. Vas (14, 21) forbids a man to eat the remnants of his own food or to eat food that comes in contact with the leavings of food. This Kalivarjya text sets aside for the Kali age the prohibition contained in Vas. 14, 21 (acc. to Bhaṭṭoji). The K. V. N. (folio 10a) states that this is the explanation given by some, but does not approve of it. The Sm. Kau. gives yet another but extremely far-fetched explanation ¹¹⁸. These several explanations of the same half verse indicate how some of the Kalivarjya texts are comparatively recent and have no settled meaning even according to comparatively late writers of digests.

27. ‘The resolve to offer worship (throughout life) with various details to a certain idol’ (1. 21).

It is not easy to see why such a resolve should have been prohibited. Therefore this explanation given by Bhaṭṭoji, K. V. N. (folio 10a), the Samaya mayūkha and others is not satisfactory. It is better to accept the explanation of the Nir. S. that this forbids the undertaking of the worship of a particular image for wages. Aparārka (pp. 450 and 923) quotes a smṛti text defining a devalaka as a brāhmaṇa who performs the worship of an [[P950]] image for wages for three years and who thereby becomes unfit to be associated with (as a guest) at śrāddhas ¹¹⁹. Manu III. 152 declares the devalaka to be unfit for being invited for śrāddhas or rites in honour of gods and Kullūka quotes Devala to the effect that one who maintains himself on the treasury of a shrine is called devalaka. It is remarkable that Vṛddha-Hārīta (VIII. 77-80) says that only the worshippers of Śiva for wages are called devalaka and those of Viṣṇu are not. Acc, to the Sm. Kau. what is forbidden is the resolve to worship an image for securing a direct vision of the Deity ¹²⁰. This is rather pedantic and far-fetched.

28. ‘Touching the bodies of those (who are impure on the death of a relative) after the collection of the bones’ (1. 22). The day on which the bones were to be collected after the body was cremated differed greatly according to various writers. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 17 notes that according to Saṃvarta ¹²¹ (verse 38) the bones may be collected on the first, third, seventh or 9th day, that the Viṣṇu Dh. S. (19. 10-11) prescribes the 4th day for it and recommends the casting of them into the Ganges, that some did it on the 2nd day and that therefore everyone should follow his own Gṛhyasūtra. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 18 quotes Devala to the effect that, after the lapse of one-third of the period of impurity prescribed for members of the four varṇas (as in Yāj. III. 22), persons who lost relatives become touchable, that members of the four varṇas become touchable in three, four, five and ten days respectively. Saṃvarta (verses 39-40) states that, after the collection of bones, touching those who are under pollution due to death is allowed on the 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th day respectively in the case of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras. The present Kalivarjya text forbids this and becomes stricter as to the rules about impurity.

29. ‘The performance by a brāhmaṇa of the duties of the killer of the victim in a sacrifice’ (1. 23). [[P951]]

The animal in a śrauta sacrifice was to be killed by choking it and strangling it. The person who did so was called śamitṛ. Different views were entertained as to who was to be the śamitṛ. Acc. to Jai. III. 7. 28-29 ¹²² the adhvaryu himself was to be the śamitṛ; the usual opinion was that he was to be some one other than the ṛtviks. The Āśv. Śr. (XII. 9. 12-13) shows that he may be a brāhmaṇa or a non-brāhmaṇa. For further details vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1121-22, n. 2504. As animal sacrifices themselves came to be looked down upon or even forbidden, this text forbids a brāhmaṇa from being a śamitṛ.

30. ‘The sale of the soma plant by brāhmaṇas’ (1. 23).

Soma beverage was to be drunk only by brāhmaṇas. The soma plant had to be purchased and there was a symbolic haggling for it. The vendor of soma in ancient times was, acc. to Kāt. Śr. VII. 6. 2-4 and Āp. Śr. X. 20. 12, either a brāhmaṇa of Kutsa gotra or any brāhmaṇa or a śūdra ¹²³. In later times, though Manu XI. 7 (= Śānti 165. 7) and Nār. (dattāpradānika 7) ¹²⁴ allow a brāhmaṇa who has wealth sufficient for the maintenance of himself and his dependents for three years or more to perform a soma sacrifice, yet Manu III. 158, Yāj. I. 165 and Vas. 14. 3 hold that a brāhmaṇa who sells the soma plant is unfit to be invited at a śrāddha and that one should not partake of food at his house. Manu X. 88 forbids a brāhmaṇa to sell water, arms, poison, soma &c. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1141-1143 for purchase of soma and the dramatic haggling for it.

31. ‘Allowing a brāhmaṇa householder to eat food at the houses of four classes of people among śūdras viz. his slave, his cowherd, a hereditary family friend and one who cultivates his fields on the basis of paying a half or other portion of the produce to him’ (ll. 25–26).

Gaut. 17. 6, Manu IV. 253 (=Viṣṇu Dh. S. ¹²⁵ 57. 16), Yāj. I. 166 and Parāśara XI. 19 say that a brāhmaṇa may eat the [[P952]] food of these four and of his own barber. Haradatta on Gaut. 17, 6 and Aparārka (p. 244) remark that a brāhmaṇa can take the food of these persons among śūdras only in the event of extreme calamities. From this it appears that up to the 12th century A. D. the peremptory prohibition contained in this text was either unknown or was not much respected. The exclusiveness of caste in matters of food and marriage was made more strict by the Kalivarjya texts. Vide above (pp. 869 and 885) as to how Parāśara himself was overruled by this text.

32. ‘Pilgrimages to very distant holy places’ (1. 26).

A brāhmaṇa was called upon to tend his Vedic or gṛhya fires. If he went to distant places on pilgrimage this duty would be interfered with. It is provided by Āp. ¹²⁶ Śr. IV. 16. 18 that even when on a journey the agnihotrin has, after turning his face in the direction of his fire altar, to go mentally over the whole procedure of his daily fire worship and the Darśa pūrṣamāsa. The Gobhila-smṛti II. 157 says the same. The Smṛtikaustubha ¹²⁷ says that this prohibits pilgrimage to holy places beyond the sea or on the borders of Bhāratavarṣa. This text prohibits a brāhmaṇa from going to distant places on pilgrimage, but it does not prevent him from undertaking a journey for earning wealth for performing sacrifices. K. V. N. (folio 10a) quotes a text of Satyavrata to this effect.

33. ‘The rule that a pupil should habitually observe the same behaviour towards the wife of the guru as towards the guru himself’ (1. 7). Āp. Dh. ¹²⁸ S. I. 2. 7. 27, Gaut. II. 31-34, Manu II, 210, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 32. 1-2 prescribe that a student should perform the same acts of honour and obedience towards the wife or wives of his teacher as towards the teacher (except holding her feet in doing obeisance and eating the leavings of the food). As students were often grown-up young men and the teacher’s wife might often be a young lady, Manu II. 212, [[P953]] 216, 217 (that are the same as Viṣṇu Dh. S. 32. 13-15) provide that a pupil full twenty years old should not show honour to the young wife of his teacher by clasping her feet, but that he may prostrate himself on the ground before the teacher’s young wife in performing obeisance and that he may hold her feet in obeisance only (once) when he returns from a journey. This text accepts the principle underlying the special rules laid down by Manu and Viṣṇu and prohibits the daily touching of the feet of the guru’s wife on the part of the pupil. The Sm. ¹²⁹ Kau. and Dharmasindhu (III p. 353) hold that this sets aside the rule laid down in Yāj I. 49 that a perpetual student may stay till his death with his teacher or with the teacher’s son or (in default of both) with the teacher’s wife.

34. ‘The modes of maintenance conceded to brāhmaṇas in times of distress (or calamity)’ (1. 28).

The special modes of maintenance prescribed for brāhmaṇas were receiving gifts, teaching the Veda and officiating as priests (Gaut. X. 2, Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 10. 5, Manu X. 76, I. 88, Vas. II. 14, Yāj. I. 118). But it was recognised from very ancient times that if a brāhmaṇa could not maintain himself by following the above modes of earning wealth he could in a season of distress pursue the avocations peculiar to a kṣatriya or vaiśya (Gaut. VII. 6-7, Baud. Dh. S. II. 2. 77-81, Vas. II. 22, Manu X, 81-82, Yāj. III. 35) ¹³⁰. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 118-133 for detailed treatment of this matter and for the restrictions imposed even when brāhmaṇas were allowed to follow the avocations of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas. The Kalivarjya prohibition is merely one on paper. From ancient times till now brāhmaṇas have pursued all sorts of avocations and hardly any importance has been attached to this dictum.

35. ‘Not accumulating any wealth (or grains) for the morrow’ (1. 28). Manu IV. 7 and Yāj. I. 128 provide that brāhmaṇas are of four kinds, viz. those who accumulate grain of the capacity of a kuśūla, those who accumulate grain of the capacity of a kumbhī, those that accumulate [[P954]] grain enough to satisfy their needs for three days and those who do not collect grain even for the next day. The smṛtis prescribe that each later one is superior in merit to each preceding one. The commentators differ as to the meaning conveyed by kuśūladhānya (some holding that it means one who has accumulated grain for three years, while others say it means one who has grain for 12 days) and kumbhīdhānya (a person accumulating grain for a year, or grain for six days). Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 110, note 234 and p. 641 note 1502. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 128 says that the advice not to accumulate corn even for three days or one day is not addressed to all brāhmaṇas, but to those only who are called yāyāvara ¹³¹. This explanation of the Mit. indicates that the Kalivarjya text on this point was either not known to the Mit. or was not much thought of by it. The Kalivarjya text provides that the ideal of extreme poverty and absence of acquisitiveness for brāhmaṇas was not to be insisted upon in the Kali age.

36. ‘The acceptance of the kindling of a log of wood (i. e. setting up sacred Vedic fire) at the time of the homa of Jātakarma for the purpose of securing long life to the child born to a person’ (1. 29). The araṇīs are two logs of Aśvattha tree from which fire is produced by attrition, which (fire) is used for kindling the gārhapatya fire. In certain śākhās, it is the practice to kindle fire from araṇīs and to use it for the homa in the Jātakarma rite. This fire was to be used in the subsequent rites for the child such as cūḍa, upanayana, marriage. It was supposed that this enables the child to live long ¹³². The Sam K. quotes a parisiṣṭa text to this effect ¹³³.

37. ‘Constant journeys by brāhmaṇas’ (1. 30). The Mahābhārata (Santi 23. 15) ¹³⁴ says, ‘As a snake swallows mice hiding in holes, the earth swallows two persons viz. a king who does not fight (an invader) and a [[P955]] brāhmaṇa who does not engage in travel’ (for acquiring learning from famous teachers). This text only forbids taking aimlessly to long journeys but not those for study or for religious purposes.

38. ‘Blowing on fire with the mouth’ in order to kindle it into flames (1 30). Gaut. IX. 32, Manu IV, 53 and Brahmapurāṇa 221. 102 forbid the blowing on fire with the mouth (as in doing so it is likely that drops of saliva from the mouth may fall into the fire and pollute it). Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 15. 20 notices that in the Vājasaneya Śākhā it is said that fire should be kindled into flames by blowing upon it with the breath from the mouth since it sprang from the mouth of the Creator (as stated in the Puruṣasūkta, Rg. X. 90. 13). Therefore, acc. to Haradatta and the Gobhila-smṛti (I. 135-136) ¹³⁵ the śrauta fire could be kindled by blowing upon it with the mouth, but smārta fire or ordinary fire should not be kindled in that way (but only by using a fan or a bamboo cylindrical piece). The Kalivarjya text forbids blowing with the mouth even on śrauta fire.

39. ‘Allowing social intercourse to women who have become polluted by rape and the like (when they have performed prāyaścitta prāyaścitta) as prescribed in the śāstras’ (1. 31). ¹³⁶ Vas. 28. 2-3 state, ‘when a woman is polluted by being raped or kidnapped by a thief, she should not be abandoned; one should wait till her monthly illness (making her undergo certain expiations till then) and she becomes pure after it.’ Atri (V. 2-3) has the same verses, which are quoted (from Vas.) by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 256 (p. 133. Tri. ed.) and explained at great length. The Matsyapurāṇa 227. 126 is liberal enough to say that the man who commits rape should be punished with death but the woman raped incurs no blame. Parāśara (X. 27) provides that if a woman is raped by an evil-doer only once she becomes pure by undergoing the Prājāpatya expiation and after the following monthly illness. Even so late a smṛti writer as Devala provides that if a woman of any class is raped by mlecchas and she conceives she can be purified by the expiation of Sāntapana. [[P956]]

But this text is harsher on such innocent and unlucky women when it says that they cannot be restored to social intercourse even after undergoing expiation.

[[P957]]

40. ‘Begging of food by a sannyāsin from members of all varṇas (including śūdras) according to the rules of the śāstra’ (1. 32). The Sm. M. p. 201 (on varṇasrama) quotes Kāṭhaka Brāhmaṇa ¹³⁷, Āruṇi Up., Parāśara (in prose) to the effect that a yati may beg for food from members of all varṇas. Baud. Dh. S. II. 10. 69 ¹³⁸ also quotes a verse which allows the begging of food from all varṇas to a yati. Vas. X. 7 requires a yati to beg at seven houses not selected beforehand and in X. 24 states that he should subsist on what food he gets at the houses of brāhmaṇas ¹³⁹. The present text requires even the yati to observe caste rules as to food.

41. ‘Not using for ten days fresh rain water’ (1. 33). Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 15. 2, Bhaṭṭoji on Catur. (p. 54), Sm. Kau. p. 479 quote a verse, ‘she-goats, cows, she-buffaloes and brāhmaṇa women become free from impurity (due to delivery) after ten nights and so does fresh rain water accumulated on the ground’ ¹⁴⁰. According to this the long period of ten days in the case of rain water is set aside. But Bhaṭṭoji notes that according to another smṛti ‘rain water falling at the proper season is pure, but it is not to be used for drinking for three days; when rain falls at an unusual season rain water is impure for ten days and if a man drinks it within that period he should abstain from food for one day and night’. Bhaṭṭoji remarks that the Kalivarjya text only sets aside waiting for ten days, but does not set aside the rule against drinking it for three days.

42. ‘(Payment of) the fee demanded by the teacher’ at the end of the period of brahmacarya (1. 33).

[[P958]]

The ancient practice was to make no agreement as to fees for teaching. Vide Bṛ. Up. IV. 1. 2. Gaut. (II. 54-55) prescribes ¹⁴¹ that at the end of his studies the student should request the teacher to accept the wealth that he could offer or ask the teacher what should be given and after paying or doing what was required by the guru or if the teacher permitted him to go without demanding anything the student should take the ceremonial bath. Vide Manu II. 245-246 and H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 360-361 for details. Yāj. I. 51 provides that at the end of his studies the student may give to the teacher what he desires (or a cow) according to his ability or may with his permission take the ceremonial bath (without paying anything). On account of these provisions we have stories in the ancient literature that very rarely teachers or their wives made fanciful demands. This Kalivarjya text only sets aside the requirement of paying what the guru demands, but does not prohibit the voluntary gift of a fee by the student ¹⁴².

43. ‘The engagement of a śūdra for such acts as cooking and the like in the houses of brāhmaṇas and the rest’ (1. 34). Āp. Dh. S. (II. 2. 3. 1-8) requires that ¹⁴³ the food for Vaiśvadeva should be prepared by pure men of the first three varṇas and also optionally allows a śūdra to be a cook for an ārya provided he is under the supervision of men of the first three varṇas, provided he sips water whenever he touches the hair, any limb or his garment, provided he cuts the hair (on his head and his body), the beard and nails every day or every 8th day of the month or on the new and full moon day and provided he bathes with the clothes on. It is this permission that is set aside by this Kalivarjya text.

44. ‘Suicide of very old people by falling into fire or from a precipice’ (1. 35).

This is analogous to No. 13 above. Atri did not condemn suicide in certain cases. He states, ¹⁴⁴ (verses 218-219) ‘if one be [[P959]] old (beyond 70), if one cannot observe the rules of bodily purification (owing to extreme weakness), if one is so ill that all medical help is discarded, and if one in these circumstances kills himself by throwing himself from a precipice or into fire or water or by fasting, mourning should be observed for him for three days and śrāddha may be performed for him.’ Aparārka (p. 536) quotes several smṛtis to the effect that a very old man or one suffering from very serious illness, one who has no desires left and has carried out his tasks may bring about his death by entering fire or water or falling from a precipice and he will incur no sin. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 926-927 for further details. This text may also be taken as forbidding suicide by falling from a precipice or into fire as an expiation in the case of those that are guilty of mahāpātakas knowingly committed. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 226 quotes a smṛti to this effect ¹⁴⁵. The Śuddhitattva holds (pp. 284-285) that suicide by entering water and the like is allowed in Kali only to śūdras and forbidden to brāhmaṇas and others.

45. ‘The performance of ācamana (purificatory sipping of water) by śiṣṭas in as much water as is sufficient for slaking the thirst of a cow’ (1. 36).

Manu V. 128, Vas. III. 35, Baud. Dh. S. I. 5. 65, Yāj. I. 192, Viṣṇu 23. 43 provide ¹⁴⁶ that water collected on the ground is pure (and may be used for ācamana) provided it is sufficient in quantity to slake the thirst of a cow. But this text forbids on hygienic grounds the use of small quantities of water collected on the ground for sipping and similar purposes.

46. ‘The residence of an ascetic in the house near which he happens to be in the evening’ (1. 38).

[[P960]]

According to Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 21. 10 and Manu VI. 43, 55-56, an ascetic was to kindle no fire, was to be houseless and was to beg only once a day in the afternoon or evening when no smoke ascends from the kitchens of people, when the embers have been extinguished, when people have finished their meals &o. Vas. (X. 12-15) provides ¹⁴⁷ that a sannyāsin was to change his residence frequently, was to stay at the boundary of the village or in a temple, or in an empty house or at the bottom of a tree and should constantly live in a forest. Śaṅkha (VII. 6) states that an ascetic should stay in an empty house or he may stay wherever he may be when the sun sets. This provision of Śaṅkha is set aside by the Kalivarjya text. Another meaning of the words, according to Kṛṣṇabhaṭṭa on the Nir. S. (p. 1310), is that this runs counter to the recommendation of Manu VI. 56 that an ascetic should go for begging to the houses in a village in the evening when all smoke from kitchens has ceased i. e. by this text he is allowed to beg in the noon. In a way this appears to be a better explanation.

The above is a complete list of all Kalivarjyas quoted from the Adityapurāṇa (except one or two). Some of the Kalivarjyas not included here, but included in other texts cited above will also be now set out for the sake of completeness of treatment.

47. ‘Resorting to sannyāsa’. Vyāsa quoted above (n. 1793 ⁶⁶) forbade sannyāsa in the Kali age after 4400 years of it had elapsed, but then Devala ¹⁴⁸ made an exception to this extent that as long as the division of society into four varṇas existed and as long as the Veda was studied sannyāsa could be resorted to even in Kali. The Nir. S. explains that what is forbidden is the sannyāsa with three daṇḍas and not the sannyāsa with one daṇḍa. Baud. II. 10. 53 (ekadaṇḍī vā) gives an option that a sannyāsin may carry three staffs or one, while Yāj. III. 58 speaks of a yati as only tridaṇḍī. Daṇḍa means a staff and also ‘restraint, curbing’. Manu XII. 10 (same as Dakṣa VII. 30) declares that that man is called tridaṇḍī who has restraint over his body, speech and mind. Dakṣa ¹⁴⁹ also says that a yati is not called tridaṇḍī by carrying three bamboo staffs, that he is called tridaṇḍī who has

[[P961]]

the spiritual restraint in him (v. 29). In I. 12-13 Dakṣa says that just as a girdle, deer skin and a wooden staff are the outward signs of a Vedic student, so three staffs are the peculiar sign of a yati. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 937-938 for further details. If the Kalivarjya text were meant to forbid sannyāsa altogether, it must be said that it was never honoured and even now thousands become sannyāsins every year. If, as the Nir. S. says, this text only forbids the carrying of three daṇḍas, it is a meaningless prohibition, giving importance only to outward symbols and not to the substance of the matter.

48. ‘The observance of agnihotra’ or the acceptance of three fires’. Vyāsa (n. 1793 ⁶⁶) forbade the performance of śrauta agnihotra along with sannyāsu in Kali, but an exception was made by Devala in favour of its observance as also of resort to sannyāsa on the grounds stated above (in No. 47). Some digests and authors such as the Nirṇayasindhu ¹⁵⁰ and Bhaṭṭoji explain that agnihotra of the sarvādhāna type is forbidden in Kali, but that of the ardhādhāna type is allowed. Agnihotra means ‘ādhāna’, that is, setting up of the śrauta fires. When a man consecrates the three śrauta fires he may do so with half of his smārta fire and keep up the other half of the smārta fire. This is called ardhādhāna. If he does not keep the smārta fire separate, it is sarvādhāna. Laugākṣi quoted by the Nir. S. (III. p. 370), Bhaṭṭoji and others states this. The Mit. on Yāj, III. 45 mentions these two modes. Therefore, according to these explanations, sarvādhāna was allowed in former ages (and acc. to one interpretation up to 4400 years of Kali), while in Kali (or at least after 4400 years of Kali) only ardhādhāna is allowed.

49. ‘Human sacrifice’ (vide note 1798 ⁷⁴ giving extract from Nāradapurāṇa).

The Tai. Br. ¹⁵¹ (III. 4. 1-19) contains a description of the procedure of human sacrifice. The oldest texts even do not show that a human being was killed. The whole procedure is

[[P962]]

symbolical. The Vāj. S. (XXX. 5 ff.) has many passages in common with the Tai. Br. The Tai. Br. III. 4.1 (= Vāj. S. 30.5) begins, ’the brāhmaṇa should be offered to brahman (spiritual power), the kṣatriya to kṣatra (military power), the vaiśya to the Maruts’ &c. Acc. to Āp. Śr. XX. 24, a brāhmaṇa or kṣatriya performs this sacrifice, whereby he attains power and valour and all prosperity. There are eleven sacrificial posts and eleven animals to be offered to Agni and Soma. After the rite of paryagnikaraṇa is performed on the brāhmaṇa and others, they are presented to the several deities and then discharged from the sacrificial posts, eleven goats are killed and oblations of their flesh and limbs are offered. Acc. to the com. on Vāj. S., it is begun on the 10th day of the bright half of Caitra and goes on for 40 days, which are occupied with 23 dīkṣās, 12 upasads and five sutyas (days on which soma is extracted). After this yāga, the yajamāna usually resorted to a forest as a sannyāsin ¹⁵².

50. ‘Aśvamedha’ (n. 1798 ⁷⁴). The Tai, S. V. 3. 12. 2 states, ¹⁵³ “he who performs the Aśvamedha becomes free from (the sin of) brāhmaṇa murder’. In spite of this Vedic authority the Bṛhan Nāradīya and other purāṇas prohibited it. But no one heeded this prohibition and numerous historic kings performed this sacrifice from at least 200 B. C. to Jayasing in the 18th century A. D. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1238-1239 and pp. 70-71 above for numerous historical performers of Aśvamedha.

51. ‘Rājasūya’ (acc. to the Garuḍapurāṇa, p. 929 above). This was a very complex rite extending over two years and could be performed only by a kṣatriya. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1214-1223 for a brief description. The Rājasūya was performed by the Kaliṅga Emperor Khāravela as he proclaims in his Hāthīgumphā Inscription (E. I. vol. XX p. 71 at p. 79) and by queen Nayanikā as stated in the Nānāghāt Inscription (A. S. W. I. vol. V. p. 60).

52. ‘Perpetual studenthood’ (n. 1798 ⁷⁴). Vedic students were of two kinds, upakurvāṇa (who offered some return or fee at the time when they returned home) and the naiṣṭhika (who remained students till death). Vide p. 764 n. 1471 above,

[[P963]]

Hārīta, Dakṣa ¹⁵⁴ (1. 7) and others mention these two varieties, while Yāj. I. 49, Vedavyāsa I. 41 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 28. 46 name and describe the naiṣṭhika. Manu II. 243-244, Yāj. I. 49-50, Vas. VII. 4-5 provide that a perpetual Vedic student should stay with his teacher till his own death, that on the teacher’s death he should stay with the teacher’s son or the teacher’s wife or should tend fire, that if he curbs his senses till his death, he reaches the world of brahma (immortality) and is not born again. This was a very difficult mode of life, there were great temptations as the flesh is weak and therefore the Bṛhan-Nāradīya and others prohibited perpetual studenthood. Some works such as the Madanapārijāta (p. 16), the Kalivarjyavinirṇaya of Dāmodara, and the Nir. S. read ‘dirgha-kālam brahmacaryam’ in place of ’naiṣṭhikam brahmacaryam’ in the Bṛhan-Nāradīya.

53. ‘Brahmacarya for long periods’ (n. 1799 ⁷⁵). The Baud. Dh, S. (1. 7. 1-5) declares, “the term of studentship for Veda study as observed in ancient times lasted for 48 years, or 24 years, or 12 years for each Veda or at least one year for each kāṇḍa (of the Tai.S.) or it lasted till the Veda was committed to memory, as life is evanescent and as the Veda ordains let him kindle the sacred fires while his hair is still black’.” The Āp. Dh. S. (1. 1. 2. 11-16) provides that the student’s stay with the teacher’s household should be 48 years, 24 years or 12 years at the lowest. Manu III. 1 also states that the vow of studying the three Vedas under a guru must be observed for 36 years or for half of that time or for a quarter of it or until the student has mastered (the Veda). These long periods of 48 years, 36 or 24 years for Veda study (before a man could become an householder) are here forbidden in Kali. This was nothing new. Yāj. I. 36 had allowed 12 years for each Veda or five and if a man did not want to study all Vedas but only one he could finish his studenthood in five years. Only an extremely small number could have spent 48 or 36 years in Veda study. Śabara on Jai. I. 3. 3 held that this text of Baud. was opposed to the śruti about kindling fires when a man was a young householder with black hair and was to be discarded. Vide pp. 832–834 above for a

[[P964]]

discussion of this. The authors of the Samayamayūkha and the Sm. Kau. both of whom had before them the reading ‘dirghakālam brahmacaryam’ held that this prohibition was aimed at the words of Āp. and Baud. and that the vow of perpetual studentship which was undertaken with a special purpose in view (viz. realization of brahma and non-return to saṃsāra) was not prohibited by the Kalivarjya text and that there was nothing wrong in the practice of perpetual studenthood among the Draviḍas.

54. ‘Animal sacrifice.’ In the Mārkaṇḍeya as quoted in Aparārka p. 929 ⁷⁵ above animal sacrifice was forbidden in the Kali age. Though popular feeling had gradually veered round to the view that meat should not be offered in śrāddhas, in madhuparka (No. 22 above), yet animal sacrifices were performed at all times and are even now performed, though very rarely.

55. ‘Intoxicating drinks (madya)’. There were startling vicissitudes in the attitude to intoxicants.

In Vedic times soma was a beverage drunk by the priests and surā was a beverage for common men and usually not meant to be offered to the gods. Soma and surā are sharply distinguished (vide Tai, S. II. 5. 1. 1, Vāj. S. 19.7, Śat. Br. V. 1. 5. 28). The Śat. Br. (V. 1. 5. 28) has the striking antithesis ‘For, Soma is truth, prosperity, light; and surā is untruth, misery, darkness’. In the Sautrāmaṇi iṣṭi a brāhmaṇa had to be hired for drinking the dregs of surā offered in it and if a brāhmaṇa could not be found the surā was poured on an ant hill (Tai. Br. I. 8. 6 and Śabara on Jai. III. 5. 14-15). It appears from the Kāṭhaka-saṃhitā XII. 12 that ¹⁵⁵ brāhmaṇas had by that time come to regard the drinking of surā as sinful. From Chān. Up. V. 10.9 it appears that a drinker of surā was enumerated among five grave sinners. In the Aśv. gṛ. II. 5. 3-5 it is said that in the rites of the Anvaṣṭaka day when piṇḍas are offered to the male ancestors, the female ancestors viz. the mother, the paternal grandmother and great-grandmother are offered surā and the scum of boiled rice in addition ¹⁵⁶. The Nir. S. (III.

[[P965]]

p. 367) refers to this passage of the Aśv. Gṛ. and holds that the Kalivarjya text against intoxicants forbids this also.

Madya is a generic term applicable to all intoxicating drinks; surā is said to be of three kinds, viz. that prepared from molasses, that from honey (or madhūka flowers or from grapes) and that from corn flour (Manu XI. 94, Viṣṇu Dh, S. 22. 82 and Saṃvarta 117). The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (22. 83-84) specifies ten kinds of madya, all of which a brāhmaṇa was not even to touch. Gaut. II. 25 ¹⁵⁷, Āp. Dh, S. I. 5. 17. 21, Manu XI. 95 forbid all kinds of madya to brāhmaṇas at all stages of life. Āp. I. 7. 21. 8, Vas. I. 20, Manu XI. 54, Viṣṇu Dh, S. 35. 1 hold that the drinking of surā is one of the five grave sins (mahāpātakas), while Yāj. III. 227 employs the word ‘madya’ in place of surā in this connection. Baud. Dh. S. I. 1. 22 however notes that among the five practices peculiar to the brāhmaṇas of the north was that of drinking rum and Baud, condemns it. The verses of Manu XI. 93–94 about the three kinds of surā have been the subject of frequent and varying interpretations. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 222, the Mit. on Yāj. III. 253, Aparārka p. 1069 and others establish that the word ‘surā’ primarily applies to paiṣṭī (liquor prepared from flour) alone, that paiṣṭī is forbidden to all brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas, that it is the drinking of paiṣṭī alone that constitutes a mahāpātaka, that all intoxicating drinks are forbidden to brāhmaṇas in all ages, but intoxicants other than paiṣṭī (such as those prepared from molasses or madhūka flowers) are not forbidden to kṣatriyas and vaiśyas. Manu XI. 93 says that surā is the refuse of cooked food (rice); therefore members of the three higher castes should not drink surā. This clearly shows that Manu took surā as meaning only paiṣṭī (liquor prepared from rice flour). The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (22. 84) expressly says that kṣatriyas and vaiśyas are not polluted by touching the ten kinds of madyas specified by it. In the Udyogaparva (59. 5) both Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa) and Arjuna are described as intoxicated by drinking the liquor prepared from honey and the Tantravārtika establishes that there was nothing wrong in this as both were kṣatriyas. Intoxicants were not forbidden to śūdras. Brahmacārins of whatever varṇa had to abstain from intoxicants of all kinds. Aparārka ¹⁵⁸ (p. 63)

[[P966]]

after quoting the Brahmapurāṇa states that intoxicating drinks were forbidden to the three varṇas in Kali and to brāhmaṇas in all yugas (ages). But this is opposed to tradition. The Ādiparva (chap. 76) narrates ¹⁵⁹ that Śukrācārya prohibited for the first time brāhmaṇas from drinking intoxicants (vide H. Dh. vol. II. pp. 792-799 for detailed discussion of this topic). The Kalivarjya text forbids the drinking of intoxicants to all the three twice-born classes. But kṣatriyas and vaiśyas pay scant attention to this prohibition and even some brāhmaṇas in these days have taken to drink as a fashionable indulgence. The K. V, N. (folio 5a), Kṛṣṇabhaṭṭa ¹⁶⁰ and Sm. Kau. note that in the śākta treatises (called Vāmāgama) madya is allowed to be offered to the idol for all the three varṇas and to kṣatriyas in the propitiatory rites for Vināyaka and for birth on the Mūla constellation but this kalivarjya text forbids all that.

An analysis of these 55 kalivarjyas yields very interesting results. About one-fourth out of the above 55 relate to Śrauta matters. There are several texts forbidding Agnihotra, Aśvamedha, Rājasūya, Puruṣamedha, sattras, Gosava, animal sacrifices, while a few others are concerned with matters of detail in sacrifices (vide. No. 11, 14-16, 29-30, 38, 48-51, 54). The first nine of these 55 are concerned with legal matters and relations. Some prohibitions are due to growing caste exclusiveness (No. 5, 10, 31, 40, 43). Others again spring from ideas of greater insistence on the sacredness of the marriage tie, a stricter morality and a demand for greater decency and purity, particularly in women (No. 2, 3, 4, 9, 15, 23, 24, 33, 39, 55). A few are based on notions of compassion, justice and equity (No. 1, 8, 24, 25, 42). Some owe their origin to the growing sacredness of the brāhmaṇa’s person and his high social position (No. 7, 10, 27, 29, 30). Some must have been suggested by hygienic considerations (No. 12, 16, 28, 38, 41, 45), some arose from strict ideas of sin, expiation and ceremonial purity and impurity (No. 13, 18-21, 28, 44). Two of these, when they

[[P967]]

sannyāsa, strike at the very root of the ancient scheme of āśramas.

The chapter on Kalivarjyas can be employed as a very effective answer to those who trot out the theory of the ‘unchanging East’. Social ideas and practices undergo substantial changes even in the most static societies. Many of the practices, that had the authority of the Veda (which was supposed to be self-existent and eternal) and of such ancient smṛtis as those of Āp., Manu and Yāj., had either come to be given up or had become obnoxious to popular sentiment. This fiction of great men meeting together and laying down conventions for the Kali age was the method that was hit upon to admit changes in religious practices and ideas of morality. The Kalivarjya texts are also a complete answer to those who hold fast to the notion that dharma (particularly ācāradharma) is immutable and unchangeable (aparivartanīya). This chapter on Kalivarjya unmistakably shows how the most authoritative dicta of the Veda and of ancient sages and law-givers were set aside and held to be of no binding authority because they ran counter to prevailing notions and furnishes a powerful weapon in the hands of those who want to introduce reforms in the incidents of marriage, inheritance and other matters touching modern Hindu society. One can further see how some practices still persist in spite of the prohibitions in the Kalivarjya texts viz. marriage with one’s maternal uncle’s daughter, sannyāsa, agnihotra and even śrauta animal sacrifices (rarely).

Some works add two more to the Kalivarjya verses which mean, ‘imprecations, omens, dreams, palmistry, listening for supernatural voices or messages, promises to make presents to a deity if a certain prayer were granted, prophetic replies by astrologers to questions, may rarely turn out to be true. One should not, however, resort to these through the desire to secure results from them. Similarly there are other actions also (that have to be abandoned) in the Kali age, because they have come to be included (by people) under improper acts (adharma).’ ¹⁶¹

[[P968]]

From the fact ¹⁶² that no ancient smṛti speaks of Kalivarjya, that the ancient commentaries of Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and even Vijñāneśvara do not cite long lists of Kalivarjyas, that such lists first make their appearance in the Smṛtyarthasāra, the Sm. C. and Hemādri (works and authors of 12th and 13th centuries), the most probable inference is that these lists of Kalivarjyas were first put together at the earliest in the 10th or 11th century A. D.