०१

ONE The Rule Sanctioning Itinerant Asceticism

  1. OM-at the time of meditation we hear it proclaim Him! Vedas, that string of texts, are a ladder to reach Him! He is Hari! In Him we take refuge!

  2. Śrī is His wife, the eagle is His banner. Lord of the Universe, victory is yours! Once He took up the ascetic emblem, and from heretic assaults He protected the Threefold Veda.1

  3. There appears to have been a myth according to which Visnu, incarnate as a triple-staffed Brahmin renouncer, once protected the vedic tradition from heretical attacks; cf. Ch. 6.303. The historical reference, if any, of this statement, however, is unclear.

3.I, Yadava, have collected all the vedic and scriptural2 passages pertaining to renunciation, and I am now setting out to compose this “Collection of Ascetic Laws.” 4-5. It consists of eleven chapters: Rule, Age of Candidate, Insignia, Procedure, Principal Activity, Daily

  1. Throughout this book, I have translated the term “smrti” as “scripture” or “scriptural” and the terms “veda” and “śruti” as “Veda(s)” or “vedic.” The first refers to a variety of traditionally authoritative texts, including the technical literature on ritual and law, the Puranas, and the Epics. Yadava, by and large, reserves this term for the Dharmasastric texts.

29 30 Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism Practices, Proper Conduct, Rules on Insignia, Wandering and Residence, Penances, and Funeral. In it I present systematically the Law of ascetics culled from the Law Books. 6-9. The authors of these Law Books are Manu, Visnu, Yama, Angiras, Vasistha, Dakṣa, Samvarta, Śātātapa, Parāśara, Katyāyana, Uśanas, Vyasa, Apastamba, Brhaspati, Hārīta, Sankha, Likhita, Yajnavalkya, Atri, Gautama, Bodhayana, Dakṣa the Elder, Kasyapa, Kapila, Kratu, Sandilya, Jābāla the Elder, Dattatreya, Devala, Gargya, Vasistha the Elder, Viśvāmitra, Galava, Medhātithi, Bharadvaja, Jamadagni, Saunaka, Paithīnasi, Satyakāma, Vayu, and so forth. 10. The Law that I present here has been gathered solely from those sections of their books devoted to the topic of renunciation and not from other sections of those books or from the Epics and Puraṇas.

  1. To begin with, I will examine whether in fact there exists a rule authorizing renunciation.3 Opponent’s Position 12. Some claim that there indeed is no such rule, because one is not found in the Veda, and because scriptures that contradict the Veda are without authority. 13. That is the view of Gautama:4 There is, however, only one order of life according to the Venerable Teacher, because the householder’s life is expressly prescribed. [GDh 3. 36) 3. It is a basic assumption in Brahmanical theology and exegesis that there has to be a specific and identifiable vedic rule authorizing a given practice or rite for it to be considered part of dharma. Regarding the long-standing controversy on the legitimacy of ascetic and celibate modes of life, see Olivelle 1993.

  2. For a detailed discussion of Gautama’s and Bodhayana’s views on the orders of life, see Olivelle 1993, 83-91. The basic argument of both is that only the householder’s life is explicitly prescribed in currently available vedic texts (“express vedic texts”: see Ch. 1.16). It is a well-known principle of Brahmanical hermeneutics that the Veda is the supreme authority in matters of dharma. Other scriptures (smrti) are considered authoritative because they are, at least in principle, based on the Veda. An express vedic text (pratyakṣaśruti) is a vedic passage that is preserved within a vedic school (sakha) and available for examination. A purported scriptural (smrti) passage that contradicts such a text is judged null and void. If no express vedic text exists to support a scriptural statement, then the latter retains its authority and is supposed to be based on a lost or unavailable vedic text. In such cases a vedic text is presumed-or more technically, inferred-to exist, although it is currently unavailable. Such a presumed vedic text-technically called anumitaśruti or “inferred vedic text” is never allowed to contradict an express vedic text. Since the acceptance of celibate orders of life contradicts the vedic injunction to marry and to procreate, Gautama and Bodhayana argue, scriptural passages authorizing such states are without authority.

  3. The Rule Sanctioning Itinerant Asceticism 14. Bodhāyana states: Some maintain that there is a fourfold division of this very Law.

Four [paths leading to the gods traverse between heaven and earth. Place us on that among them, all you gods, which will bring us unfailing prosperity]. [TS 5.7.2.3] This text has only an invisible purposes and, therefore, refers to categories of rites, namely, vegetable offering, soma offering, animal offering, and offering with a ladle.

Now, these orders are student, householder, forest hermit, and wandering ascetic. A student serves his teacher until death. A forest hermit kindles his fire according to the procedure for ascetics and lives in the forest, conducting himself in accordance with the Book on Hermits, eating roots and fruits, and practicing austerities. He should bathe at dawn, noon, and dusk, and subsist on wild produce. He may also subsist on almsfood, but he should never enter a village. Wearing matted hair and clothed in bark or deer skin, he shall not eat what has been stored for over a year.

31 5. This passage from the BDh differs considerably from the critical edition. That edition here reads adṛṣṭatvāt, which according to Būhler and the commentator, Govinda, means “Because no other meaning is to be found.” This, according to Bodhayana, is the reason for interpreting the vedic text “Four paths leading to the gods…” (TS 5.7.2.3) as referring to the four types of sacrifices and for rejecting the interpretation made by the proponents of the system of four orders, according to whom the “four paths” refer to the four orders of life. The variant reading recorded by Yadava appears, on the contrary, to be a reference to the well-known principle of Brahmanical hermeneutics that the Vedas, and therefore dharma, must always have an invisible purpose or aim; their results are manifested after death. According to this interpretation, Bodhayana argues against the opponent’s interpretation because the vedic text, having by definition an invisible purpose, can refer only to sacrifices. The implication appears to be that the various modes of life subsumed under the four orders serve only worldly purposes. This appears also to be the point made a little later on with the expression “drstarthatvāt”, “For they have a visible purpose.” 6. Technically called śramanaka, this is a special ritual procedure for establishing a sacred fire before a forest hermit leaves for the forest. A version of this procedure is given in the VaiDh 2.1. The fire of a hermit itself is often referred to as “Śramanaka fire”, see VaiDh 2.1-5.

  1. Būhler, following Govinda, takes “vaikhanasaśastra” to be a treatise composed by the sage Vikhanas, regarded as the founder of the institution of forest hermits. I prefer to translate this expression as referring merely to a treatise on hermits. It is also possible that it refers to such treatises in general rather than to a specific one.

  2. Literally, “what is not grown in a village.” The total physical separation of forest hermits from society is highlighted by their abstention from using anything mediated by civilization, whether it be cultivated food or manufactured clothing. One law book prohibits them from “stepping on plowed land” (GDh 3.32), the prime symbol of civilized geography.

32 Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism A wandering ascetic should forsake his kin and wander about without possessions. After going to the wilderness, he should shave his head completely or keep only his topknot, wear just a loincloth, and reside in one place during the rains. Clothed in an ocher garment, he should beg for food when pestles have been set aside and embers extinguished, when the people have finished their meals and removed the dishes. He shall not hurt any creature by verbal, mental, or physical acts of hostility. He should carry a water strainer for use in purifications and use for ritual purposes only water that has been drawn out.9 They proclaim: “We stick to the middle, rejecting the fire sacrifices to the gods and separating ourselves. from both sides.“10 There is, however, only one order of life according to the Venerable Teacher, because a person does not bear children in the others. In this connection, they quote: There was once a demon named Kapila, the son of Prahlada. It was he who made these divisions in his effort to compete with the gods. A wise man, therefore, should pay no heed to them.

For they have a visible purpose. On this point, when they quote!! 9. Flowing water, such as that of a river, is always pure and can be used without straining. Stagnant water (for example, in wells and ponds) must be drawn out in a vessel, strained with a cloth, and poured from the vessel to make it run before it can be used for ritual purposes. See Ch. 6.41-44.

  1. “We” probably refers to wandering ascetics. The meaning appears to be that ascetics take to their path with this type of belief or proclamation. The meaning of “both” (sides, ends, or extremes?) and “the middle” is unclear, however. Govinda, followed by Būhler, takes “both” to mean this world and the next and “middle” to mean Brahman. In a forthcoming article entitled “The Earliest Brahminical Reference to Buddhism?” Richard Gombrich has suggested that the middle may be a reference to the Buddhist “middle way” (the critical edition of BDh reads, in fact, madhyamam padam, middle state or path). It may, however, be possible to interpret this difficult phrase within the context of the RV (10.71.9) passage cited later. There, people who do not participate in ritual are said to “proceed neither to this side nor to the other side.” The meaning, at least within Bodhayana’s understanding of this text, appears to be that such people do not gain prosperity in this world or in heaven after death, two major goals of the vedic ritual. In this light, one may see the ascetics as rejecting both those goals in favor of the “middle,” which may refer to the goal of final liberation.

  2. See n. 5. The line of Bodhayana’s argument is that when supporters of celibate asceticism cite vedic proof-texts such as this from the TB, a passage that is also cited in the BaU 4.4.23 in support of Upanisadic doctrines, the upholders of marriage and ritual religion can quote many other texts that argue against celibacy. This is an excellent example of the internal controversies regarding proper belief and proper action that went on within the Brahmanical tradition itself. The targets of the legal authors’ critique were mainly their colleagues who espoused different and often ascetic ideas, rather than Buddhists and other heretics, as it is often supposed.

  3. The Rule Sanctioning Itinerant Asceticism This eternal greatness [of a Brahmin is neither increased nor reduced by rites. The self knows that greatness of his. When someone knows it, he is not stained by evil deeds]. [TB 3.12.9.7-8] one should reply by quoting At the time of death [a man without the knowledge of the Veda does not turn his mind to that great all-perceiving self], set ablaze by whose power the sun gives warmth [and a father in his son is provided with a father from generation to generation].12 [TB 3.12.9.7] These people who proceed neither to this side nor to the other side, who are neither Brahmins nor participants at Soma sacrifices-they make use of speech in evil ways and weave their web in ignorance. [RV 10.71.9] 13 Through offspring, O Fire, may we obtain immortality. [RV 5.4.10] At his very birth a Brahmin is born with three debts: a debt of vedic studentship to the seers, a debt of sacrifice to the gods, and a debt of offspring to the forefathers. [TS 6.3.10.5] There are innumerable such statements on people’s association with debts, as well as direct prohibitions.14 [BDh 2.11.9-33] 15. Āpastamba says: Study of the triple Veda, studentship, procreation, faith, austerity, sacrifice, gift giving-we are with those who perform these. Those who commend other things will become dust and perish. [ApDh 2.24.8] 33 16. Therefore, no celibate orders of life exist, because they are not sanctioned in the Veda and because scriptural texts lose all authority when they contradict an express vedic text [see Ch. 1.13 n. 4].

  4. The statement about the father becoming a father (pitṛman) through his son is not altogether clear. It is clear, however, that it resonates with other vedic statements regarding the importance of procreation. In another place the TB (1.5.5.6) affirms that “in your offspring you are born again; that, O mortal, is your immortality.” The Aitareya Aranyaka (2.5) claims that a father is born a second time in his son, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (7.13.1) asserts that a father attains immortality when he sees the face of his living son. The point of all this for Bodhāyana’s argument is that the celibate state authorized by the system of the orders of life (aśrama) goes against explicit vedic statements on the necessity of begetting children, especially sons.

  5. The meaning of this very difficult verse is unclear, especially the last phrase containing the hapax legoumenon siri. The reason for its citation here, however, is clear. The verse, as Bodhayana understands it, condemns those who reject ritual practices and use speech (vac), probably meaning the vedic texts, in evil ways. This, according to Bodhayana, is precisely what the creators of the asrama system did by using vedic proof-texts in support of their theory.

  6. The vedic passages dealing with debts implicitly prohibit celibate states of life. Bodhayana, further, affirms that the Vedas contain injunctions that directly and explicitly prohibit such modes of life. This last statement does not appear in the critical edition of the BDh.

34 Objection Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism 17. Now someone may object that there indeed exists an express vedic text among the followers of the White Yajurveda: Desiring this very world, wandering ascetics depart for the ascetic life. [BaU 4.4.22] And also: Eschewing erudition, therefore, let a Brahmin live like a simpleton. Eschewing both erudition and simplicity, then, he becomes a sage. [BaU 3.5.1] 18. That text points out also the conduct: On knowing this, indeed, the people of old did not wish for offspring, for they thought: “Our self is our world; so why should we need offspring?” [BaU 4.4.22] And also: They did not offer the daily fire sacrifice. [?] Reply 19. We answer this objection with a question: is itinerant asceticism enjoined for the benefit of the agent or, like rites such as holding the hand, for the benefit of some other ritual act?15 If, on the one hand, it is for the agent’s benefit, then, according to the maxim “It should be heaven,” its purpose has to be either heaven or something else. 16 Now, its purpose cannot be heaven, because that would negate its inclusion within the subject of liberation, for obviously every treatise that enjoins itinerant asceticism does so exclusively within the section. devoted to the subject of liberation. Consequently, we are compelled to affirm some degree of correlation between it and the subject of lib- 15. Brahmanical hermeneutics divides all ritual acts into those that directly benefit the ritual actor (puruṣartha) and those that are required only by the rite itself and therefore perform a merely ritual purpose (kratvartha). In the example alluded to, the marriage ceremony as a whole serves the purpose of the ritual actors-the bride and groom-but the groom’s particular act of taking the bride’s hand serves a merely ritual purpose. For this hermeneutical principle, see PMS 4.1.2. In this entire discussion by Yadava, the terms for asceticism and renunciation (pārivrajya, samnyasa,) are taken to refer directly to the rite for becoming an ascetic rather than to the ascetic life in general. It is only within this context that the analogy to other vedic rites makes sense.

  1. This maxim deals with an abstruse exegetical principle spelled out in PMS 4.3.7.13-16. Simply stated, the maxim asserts that the single goal of the various rites prescribed in the Veda is heaven. If we follow this maxim, then the rite of renunciation-if it qualifies as a vedic rite-should have heaven as its goal. If not, then the opponent has the burden of presenting something else as its specific goal.

  2. The Rule Sanctioning Itinerant Asceticism 35 eration. It is impossible, however, to make such an assertion, because the Vedas clearly teach that liberation is achieved only through knowledge: Upon knowing him in this manner, one transcends death. There is no other path along which to travel. [VS 31.18] Sacrificial presents do not reach there, nor do those who practice austerities but lack knowledge. Only through knowledge does a man reach that place where desires are vanquished. [SB 10.5.4.16] 20. Now, some claim that itinerant asceticism is enjoined as a necessary adjunct to the acquisition of knowledge. That is not true. Since the acquisition of knowledge is open to householders as well, it is improper to assume that there is an injunction establishing a separate order of life for that purpose. Even if we were to so assume, it would not establish a separate order of life. On the contrary, it would only institute a particular vow called “itinerant asceticism” intended exclusively for householders, in a manner similar to the vow of maintaining three sacred fires.17 And we understand it to be a particular observance entailing the abandonment of attachments, an observance that is not incompatible with the household life one has already undertaken. Practices found in the scriptural texts are not to be accepted when they contradict the Veda. The very term “itinerant asceticism,” moreover, is not noted elsewhere as referring to a separate order of life, for if it were, that order would be rendered nonvedic. So we must conclude that this vedic text contains only an illustrative referencel to itinerant asceticism, an institution well known in the scriptures, and that the intention of that text here is only to praise knowledge-saying, in effect, that knowledge is so great that by its power people do not fall into sin even when they relinquish rites that have been enjoined on them.

  3. Three sacred fires are required for the performance of several vedic sacrifices. Although all Brahmins were expected ideally to maintain all three fires continuously in their homes, from early times on only exceptional people who were professional priests did so. Such persons were referred to by the technical term “āhitagni.” By the middle ages this practice appears to have become so rare as to be considered a special and extraordinary vow. According to the argument of Yadava’s hypothetical adversary, renunciation should be considered a similar vow that exceptional householders may undertake voluntarily.

  4. The reference is to the texts of the BaU that the opponent had cited in support of renunciation as constituting a separate order of life; see Ch. 1.17-18. “Illustrative reference” (anuvada) is a technical term in vedic exegesis and refers to statements that have no injunctive power of their own but merely repeats by way of illustration or commendation rules that have already been laid down. The opponent’s intent is to deny any injunctive force to this vedic text with regard to renunciation.

36 Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism 21. Thus, some teachers hold that there is no order of life called itinerant asceticism, because [a] there is no exclusive vedic observance that is not open to householders and constitutes a special order of life, an observance that would parallel, for example, the daily fire sacrifice,19 and [b] customs such as begging for food are just elements of good conduct, in much the same way as twilight worship and the like, and as such they are intended to promote observances that do constitute an order of life and are not observances that could on their own constitute an order of life.

Author’s Position 22. To all this we reply. There is an exclusive observance known as the yoga of knowledge. The following vedic text, accordingly, notes at the outset the rites beginning with “truth” and ending with “mental,“20 goes on to prescribe renunciation: “They say that renunciation, therefore, surpasses these austerities” [MNU 538], and finally enjoins the yoga of knowledge as what is expressed by the term renunciation: “One should attach oneself to the self” [MNU 540]. Now, the yoga of knowledge consists in the sole pursuit of knowledge. Such a pursuit, evidently, is not possible for householders, because they are required to perform in addition rites such as the daily fire sacrifice. Only the yoga of rites, consequently, is applicable to them. Now, the yoga of rites consists in the simultaneous pursuit of both knowledge and rites, from which pursuit its practitioners obtain liberation. Wandering ascetics, on the other hand, attain liberation solely through the yoga of knowledge. Because they do not perform rites, therefore, the same text in a subsequent passage shows how they accomplish the ritual and prescribes that a wandering ascetic should carry it out every day without fail: “In the case of a man who knows the sacrifice in this manner, [his self is the sacrificer, faith is his wife, his body is the fire 19. The daily fire sacrifice (agnihotra) is both a vedic observance and a practice that is meant exclusively for householders. The argument here is that such an exclusive practice meant solely for renouncers is not found in the Veda.

  1. The reference is to section 505-15 in the MNU. These eleven statements define the “ultimate” (param) progressively as truth, austerity, control, tranquility, generosity, virtue (dharma), procreation, fires, fire sacrifice, sacrifice, and mental (offering).

  2. The Rule Sanctioning Itinerant Asceticism 37 wood…].“21 This is not merely a laudatory statement but a true injunction, because it has no precedent.22 23. Is it not true that even wandering ascetics perform rites such as the twilight worship? Certainly, but they are customary practices, and as such they are performed solely to promote the duties of one’s order of life and not to obtain liberation. Only the yoga of knowledge aims at liberation. Practices such as twilight worship foster that yoga, because, as stated in the following scriptural passages, a person who does not perform the twilight worship is not qualified to perform such yoga: A man who does not perform the twilight worship is always impure and is unfit to perform any rite.

And: The Vedas do not cleanse a man who pays no heed to good conduct.

We will point out, moreover, that practices such as silent prayer, austerity, and begging are included within restraints and constraints.23 Now, all branches of learning recognize that restraints, constraints, and the like are elements of yoga. Those practices, therefore, must also be included within the yoga of knowledge.

  1. It is thus established that the yoga of knowledge pertains to wandering ascetics, while the yoga of rites pertains to householders. The Veda accordingly declares that a person can attain immortality only by abandoning rites: 21. This long passage (MNU 543-50) is an extensive allegory of the sacrifice that a renouncer performs internally. At this sacrifice his own body, bodily functions, and the act of eating are homologized with the various elements of the sacrifice. Such a renouncer performs a continuous and daily sacrifice by his very existence and by the daily activities he performs.

  2. Here we encounter a bit of abstruse hermeneutical ratiocination. The issue addressed is whether the MNU passage cited here regarding the internal sacrifice has true injunctive power or is merely a laudatory statement. The latter type of vedic statements falls under the category known as anuvada, or illustrative statements (see Ch. 1.20 n. 18). These are not injunctions in their own right but are authoritative only because they refer to already-established injunctions. The author denies that the passage in question can be such a noninjunctive statement by saying that it has no precedent, i.e., that there is no previously established injunction of which it can be an illustration or praise. Consequently, it must be what Brahmanical hermeneutics calls an “original injunction” (apurvavidhi), that is, an injunction that prescribes a practice for the first time.

  3. Restraints (yama) and constraints (niyama) are the first two steps of the eightfold yogic path: see Ch. 5.47f. The author wants to point out that the common practices of renouncers, such as begging for food, are in fact part and parcel of their yogic endeavor and are therefore also a part of their yoga of knowledge.

38 Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism Not by rites, not by offspring, and not by wealth–but by renunciation did some people attain immortality. [MNU 227] And also: Firmly grasping the import of Vedantic wisdom, their hearts purified by the practice of renunciation, all these ascetics attain at the end of time in the world of Brahma final liberation from the highest immortality.24 (MNU 229-30] The Blessed Vasudeva, likewise, declares: [I have formerly taught, my dear, a twofold method of perfection:] the yoga of knowledge for followers of Samkhya and the yoga of rites for yogins. (BhG 3.3] 25. Consequently, because an exclusive practice does exist [see Ch. 1.21 n. 19], we posit the existence of an order of life called “itinerant asceticism” that is sanctioned by the Veda. Because they are based on the vedic texts providing that sanction, moreover, the scriptural passages on this topic retain their authority. Now, practices connected with this order are not appropriate for householders, because, in the statement “They beg for their food” [BaU 4.4.22), the Veda enjoins on all ascetics the abandonment of property.25 It is established, therefore, that itinerant asceticism is a clearly distinct order of life.

  1. That ends the first chapter, entitled “The Rule Sanctioning Itinerant Asceticism,” of the Collection of Ascetic Laws composed by Yadava Prakāśa.

  2. The meaning of this phrase is unclear. It may mean that these ascetics first attain the world of Brahma, defined here as “highest immortality,” and from there are finally liberated (mokṣa) at the end of time. This verse occurs also in the Mundaka Upanisad (3.2.6) and in the Kaivalya Upanisad (1.4), where the reading is paramṛtāḥ (this reading is also found in some recensions of the MNU). The translation thus would be “… at the end of time, being supremely immortal, attain final liberation in the world of Brahma.” 25. The argument is that begging is enjoined on all wandering ascetics. Begging implies abandoning all possessions. Such an abandonment is impossible for householders, both because of family responsibilities and, more importantly from a hermeneutical standpoint, because their obligation to perform rites requires that they possess the wealth needed to perform them. Consequently, the dharma of renouncers is exclusively theirs and cannot be practiced by householders. This supports the author’s claim that renunciation constitutes an order of life distinct from that of the householder.