Background
See theory page.
Support
- “It would appear that Gāgābhaṭṭa accepted the first argument about the seed-presence of the Kṣatriyas in the Kali age, and tried to remedy their loss of dharma with purificatory vrātya-stoma rite. … The opinion of Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa’s Dharmapravr̥tti is echoed verbatim by Anantadeva in his Samskāra-kaustubha (pp. 114-115, litho graphic edition, Bombay, 1861). Anantadeva was a close associate of Gāgābhaṭṭa in making decisions regarding the CKPs and Kṣatriyas. … It seems quite clear that Gāgābhaṭṭa was no modern reformist, out to abolish the caste system, in the image of Jotiba Phule or B.R. Ambedkar. The dispute was not over the legitimacy of the caste system as such, but about whether the traditional Dharmaśāstra could be tweaked to find just enough space to recognize a de facto Rājā as a legitimate Kṣatriya.”
- “A counter argument supporting the expiatory rights to purify the impure Kṣatriyas is offered in the text of Vrātyatā-śuddhi-saṅgraha produced by the pandits at the court of Jayasiṁha in Rajasthan.”
Disagreement
- “The most extensive argumentation against admitting the presence of pure Kṣatriyas in the Kali age, and the ineligibility of the impure Kṣatriya to purify themselves by undergoing an expiatory rite is offered in two nirṇaya texts that are attributed to Nāgeśabhaṭṭa: Vrātyatā-prāyascitta-nirṇaya (in Mahā- and Laghu- versions).” He says: “From the birth of Pariksit to the coronation of Nanda, these were the first fifteen hundred years of the Kali age, and there were genuine Kṣatriyas on earth only for this duration. On the basis of this statement in the ViṣṇuPurāṇa, the absence of genuine Kṣatriyas, worthy of Upanayana, in the rest of the Kali age is indicated.”
- “A convenient summary of the main arguments is provided by the editor of these texts, NārāyaṇaśāstrI Khiste, in his preface… He claims that those pandits who were dependent upon Jayasiṁha for their livelihood produced the Vrātyatāśuddhisaṅgraha, having forgotten the true intent of the ancient Smrtis under the influence of wealth. On the other hand, wealth did not mean anything to Nāgeśabhaṭṭa, whose sole concern was to protect the proper domain of the śāstras, and he produced the Vrātyatāprāyascittanirṇaya, following solely the path of the śāstras, and disregarding the pressure from Jayasiṁha. “This is what we have heard from the older generations of Banaras.”” Nārāyaṇaśāstri Khiste’s statements in the preface show us how Nāgeśabhaṭṭa’s views were considered authoritative by the Maharashtrian Brahmins of Banaras, even after more than a century."
- Vaidyanatha Pāyagunde (1690-1780AD) in his Chāyā on Nāgeśabhaṭṭa’s Uddyota on Kaiyata’s Pradipa on Patañjali’s Mahābhāsya commenting on “brāhmanena niskārano dharmah sadango vedo ‘dhyeyo jheyas ca” says that in fact there are no Kṣatriyas and Vaisyas in the Kali age, and to suggest this Patanjali says that (only) Brahmins should study the Veda (vastutas tu kalau Kṣatriya-vaisyayor abhāvaṁ sūcayitum tathoktam iti yathāsrutam eva tat sādhu).
- “P.V. Kane (1975: 971) cites Bālambhaṭṭa on the views of his father, Vaidyanitha, on the question of Kṣatriyas in the Kali age: tathā ugrādi-rūpa-Kṣatriya-sattve ‘pi- tesām na Kṣatriyatvam kim tu śūdratvam eveti guru-caraṇa-kr̥ta-vrātya-prāyascitta-nirṇaye spaṣṭam / tata eva bodhyam / sphuṭīkrtam caitat pitr-caranaih kāyastha-nirṇaye.”
- “Pandit Nīlakaṇṭha Shastri Thatte (1750-1834AD) of the late Peshwa and early British period in Maharashtra opposed it. He was a great grammarian, who is said to have studied with the great grammarian Vaidyanātha Pāyagunde (1690-1780AD), who was himself a direct disciple of the illustrious grammarian Nāgeśabhaṭṭa (1650- 1730AD), a junior contemporary of the great Gāgābhaṭṭa.”