Vajrasuci (Siddhacarya Ghoshapada) (Vajrasūci (Siddhācārya Ghoshapāda))

Vajrasūcī
Oṃ, homage to Mañjunātha!
Bowing with speech, body, and mind to Mañjughoṣa, the teacher of the world,
I, Aśvaghoṣa, string together the Vajrasūcī according to [my] understanding.

The Vedas are an authority; the Smṛtis are an authority; speech endowed with righteousness and meaning is an authority.
For whom an authority would not be an authority, whose word would that person accept as authoritative?

(a) Here, concerning what you maintain: 'The brāhmaṇa caste is the foremost of all castes,' we ask in this regard: what is this entity called a brāhmaṇa? Is it the soul? Is it birth? Is it the body? Is it knowledge? Is it conduct? Is it action? Is it the Veda?
(b) In that regard, first, the soul is not the brāhmaṇa. Why? Because of the authority of the Veda. For it is stated in the Veda:
(c) 'Oṃ, Sūrya was a sacrificial beast; Soma was a sacrificial beast; Indra was a sacrificial beast.'
The gods are sacrificial beasts. The beast-gods are consumed. Even dog-cookers become gods.
(d) Therefore, from the authority of the Veda, we consider that one is not a brāhmaṇa by virtue of being a soul. And also from the authority of the Mahābhārata.
For it is stated in the Mahābhārata:
Seven hunters in Daśārṇa, deer on Mount Kālañjara,
cakravāka birds in Śaradvīpa, swans on Lake Mānasa—

even they were born in Kurukṣetra as brāhmaṇas who had mastered the Vedas.

(e) Therefore, from the authority of the Mahābhārata, because the condition of hunters, deer, swans, and cakravāka birds is seen [to occur], we consider that first, the soul is not the brāhmaṇa. And also from the authority of the Laws of Manu.
For it is stated in the Laws of Manu:
Having studied the four Vedas in truth, along with the limbs and secondary limbs,
a brāhmaṇa who accepts gifts from a śūdra is born a donkey;

a donkey for twelve births, a pig for sixty births,
a dog for seventy births—thus Manu has spoken.

(f) Therefore, from the authority of the Laws of Manu, the soul is not the brāhmaṇa.
(g) Nor is birth the brāhmaṇa. Why? Because of the authority of Smṛti.
For it is stated in Smṛti:
Acala was born from an elephant, Keśapiṅgala from an owl;
Agastya from an agasti flower, and Kauśika from kuśa grass;

Kapila was born from a tawny cow, and Gautama from a clump of reeds;
Droṇācārya, moreover, from a water-jar, and Tittiri was the son of a partridge;

Reṇukā gave birth to Rāma, a female deer to the sage Ṛṣyaśṛṅga;
a fisherwoman gave birth to Vyāsa, and a śūdra woman indeed to Kuśika;

and a caṇḍāla woman to Viśvāmitra, and Urvaśī indeed to Vasiṣṭha.
Their mothers were not brāhmaṇa women, yet they are brāhmaṇas by worldly custom.

(h) Therefore, from the authority of Smṛti, we consider that birth is not the brāhmaṇa.
(i) Now you might think: 'The mother may well not be a brāhmaṇa woman, [yet] their father was a brāhmaṇa, and therefore one becomes a brāhmaṇa.' If so, even the sons of female slaves fathered by a brāhmaṇa would be brāhmaṇas, but this is not accepted by you.
(j) Moreover, if a brāhmaṇa's son is a brāhmaṇa, then there would result the non-existence of brāhmaṇas, because of doubt regarding the father among present-day brāhmaṇas, since brāhmaṇa women, beginning from the clan-brāhmaṇa, are seen going to śūdras. Therefore, birth is not the brāhmaṇa.

And also from the authority of the Laws of Manu.
For it is stated in the Laws of Manu:
A brāhmaṇa falls instantly through [selling] meat, lac, and salt;
and within three days a brāhmaṇa who sells milk becomes a śūdra.

Vipras who traverse the sky fall from eating meat;
having seen the fall of vipras, one should therefore avoid meat.

(k) Therefore, from the authority of the Laws of Manu, birth is not the brāhmaṇa. For if birth were the brāhmaṇa, then upon falling, the condition of being a śūdra would not be possible. Would indeed a horse, even if defective, become a pig? Therefore, birth also is not the brāhmaṇa.
(l) Nor is the body the brāhmaṇa.

Why? If the body were the brāhmaṇa, then fire too would be a killer of a brāhmaṇa, and the murder of a brāhmaṇa would occur for relatives through cremating the body. Also, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras born from the bodily emission of a brāhmaṇa would be brāhmaṇas, but this is not seen. And from the destruction of a brāhmaṇa's body, the destruction of the fruit of sacrificing, officiating at sacrifices, studying, teaching, giving, and receiving gifts—produced by the brāhmaṇa's body—would follow, but this is not admitted. Therefore, we consider that the body also is not the brāhmaṇa.

(m) Nor is knowledge the brāhmaṇa. Why? Because of the abundance of knowledge. Whichever śūdras possess knowledge, all of them would be brāhmaṇas. And in some cases, even śūdras are seen who know the meaning of all treatises, such as the Veda, grammar, Mīmāṃsā, Sāṃkhya, Vaiśeṣika, the naked ascetics, and the Ājīvikas. Yet they would not be brāhmaṇas. Therefore, we consider that knowledge also is not the brāhmaṇa.
(n) Nor is conduct the brāhmaṇa. Why? If conduct were the brāhmaṇa, then whichever śūdras possess [proper] conduct, all of them would be brāhmaṇas. And actors, soldiers, fishermen, jesters, and so forth are seen possessing various kinds of exceedingly fierce conduct, yet they do not become brāhmaṇas. Therefore, conduct also is not the brāhmaṇa.
(o) Nor is action the brāhmaṇa. Why? For kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras are seen performing various actions in connection with sacrificing, officiating at sacrifices, studying, teaching, giving, and receiving gifts, yet they are not accepted as brāhmaṇas by you. Therefore, action also is not the brāhmaṇa.
(p) Nor is one a brāhmaṇa through the Veda. Why? There was a rākṣasa named Rāvaṇa. By him the four Vedas were studied: the Ṛgveda, the Yajurveda, the Sāmaveda, and the Atharvaveda. And in every house of the rākṣasas the usage of the Veda certainly proceeds. Yet they would not be brāhmaṇas. Therefore, we consider that one is not a brāhmaṇa through the Veda either.

(q) How, then, does the condition of being a brāhmaṇa come to be?
It is said:
The condition of being a brāhmaṇa does not come from scripture, nor from sacraments, nor from births,
nor from lineage, nor from the Veda, nor from action therefore.

(r) For the condition of being a brāhmaṇa, white as jasmine and the moon, is the removal of all evil.

(s) For it is stated: And from the practice of vows, austerity, self-restraint, fasting, generosity, self-control, tranquility, and discipline—

and likewise it is stated in the Veda:
Free from 'mine', free from egoism, free from attachment, free from possessions,
freed from passion and hatred—him the gods know as a brāhmaṇa. || 14

It is also said in all treatises:
Truth is brahma; austerity is brahma; brahma is control of the senses;
compassion toward all beings is brahma: this is the characteristic mark of a brāhmaṇa.

There is no truth, there is no austerity, and there is no control of the senses;
there is no compassion toward all beings: this is the characteristic mark of a caṇḍāla.

Among divine or human women, and even among those who have entered animal wombs,
those who do not engage in sexual intercourse—they are vipras and they are brāhmaṇas.

It is also said by Śukra:
Birth is not seen so long as virtues produce good fortune;
for even a caṇḍāla who abides therein, the gods know him as a brāhmaṇa.

(na) Therefore, neither birth, nor the soul, nor the body, nor knowledge, nor conduct, nor action, nor the Veda constitutes a brāhmaṇa.
(pa) Moreover, you have said: “Here, renunciation is not prescribed for śūdras;
service to brāhmaṇas alone is prescribed as their duty. Because they are mentioned at the end among the four classes, they are low.”
(pha) If that were so, then Indra also would be low, by virtue of the grammatical rule, “śvayuvamaghonāmataddhite” [Pāṇini 6.4.133]. ‘Śvā’ means dog; ‘yuvā’ means young man; ‘maghavā’ means Indra, king of the gods.
Compared to those two—the dog and the man—Indra alone would be low! But this is not observed. Does a defect arise merely from the order of words? And likewise, “Umā and Maheśvara,” or “teeth and lip,” are expressions used in common parlance; neither were the teeth born first, nor Umā.
It is simply a compound of the classes that is formed: “brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras.” Therefore, your proposition that “service to brāhmaṇas alone is their duty” is invalid.
(ba) Furthermore, this matter of being a brāhmaṇa is indeterminate.
For it is stated in the Law of Manu:
For one who has drunk the saliva of a śūdra woman, who has been tainted by her breath,
and who has fathered a child upon her, no expiation is found.

He who eats from the hand of a śūdra woman continuously for one month,
becomes a śūdra while living, and upon death is born as a dog.

A vipra attended by a śūdra woman, with a śūdra woman as the mistress of the house,
abandoned by the ancestors and gods, goes to the Raurava hell.

(bha) Therefore, on the authority of this statement, this matter of being a brāhmaṇa is variable.
(ma) Furthermore, what else? Even a śūdra becomes a brāhmaṇa. What is the reason? For here in the Law of Manu it is declared:
The great sage named Kaṭha was born from the belly of a fire-drill;
he became a brāhmaṇa through austerity; therefore, birth is no cause.

The great sage named Vyāsa was born from the belly of a fisherwoman;
he became a brāhmaṇa through austerity; therefore, birth is no cause.

The great sage Vasiṣṭha also was born from the womb of Urvaśī;
he became a brāhmaṇa through austerity; therefore, birth is no cause.

The great sage Ṛṣyaśṛṅga was born from the womb of a doe;
he became a brāhmaṇa through austerity; therefore, birth is no cause.

The great sage Viśvāmitra was born from the womb of a caṇḍāla woman;
he became a brāhmaṇa through austerity; therefore, birth is no cause.

The great sage Nārada indeed was born from the womb of an outcaste woman;
he became a brāhmaṇa through austerity; therefore, birth is no cause.

Self-conquered, free from rivalry, having conquered the five [senses], with controlled faculties,
he became a brāhmaṇa through austerity, a brāhmaṇa through celibacy.

And they were not sons of brāhmaṇa women, yet they are the brāhmaṇas of the world;
brahma consists of good conduct and purity; therefore, family is no cause.

Good conduct is primary, family is not primary;
what is the use of a family devoid of good conduct?
Many men born of low families,
wise ones, have gone to heaven by adopting good conduct.

(ya) Who indeed are those brāhmaṇa sages—Kaṭha, Vyāsa, Vasiṣṭha, Ṛṣyaśṛṅga, Viśvāmitra, and others? They were born of low families, and yet they are the brāhmaṇas of the world. Therefore, from the authority of this statement too, this matter of being a brāhmaṇa is variable: even in a śūdra family a brāhmaṇa is born.
(ra) Moreover, there is another opinion of yours:
The brāhmaṇa was born from the mouth, likewise the kṣatriya from the arms,
the vaiśya was born from the thighs, and the śūdra from the feet.

(la) To this it is replied: Many brāhmaṇas do not know whence brāhmaṇas were born from the mouth. For here, even in the families of fishermen, washermen, and caṇḍālas there are brāhmaṇas;
the rites of tonsure, the sacred grass-girdle, staff, wood, and so forth are performed for them as well; they too are given the designation ‘brāhmaṇa’. Therefore, just like brāhmaṇas, so too are kṣatriyas and the rest. Thus we see that there is only one class; there is no system of four classes.
(va) Furthermore: how can there be four classes among those born from a single person? In this world, a certain Devadatta begets four sons upon one woman; and there is no difference of class among them, such as “this one is a brāhmaṇa, this one a kṣatriya, this one a vaiśya, this one a śūdra.” Why? Because they have a single father. In the same way, how can there be four classes among brāhmaṇas and the rest?

(śa) For here, a distinction in footprints is observed among cows, elephants, horses, deer, lions, tigers, and so forth: ‘This is a cow’s footprint, this an elephant’s footprint, this a horse’s footprint, this a deer’s footprint, this a lion’s footprint, this a tiger’s footprint.’ But among brāhmaṇas and the rest, there is no ‘This is a brāhmaṇa’s footprint, this a kṣatriya’s footprint, this a vaiśya’s footprint, this a śūdra’s footprint.’ Therefore, from the absence of distinction in footprints as well, we see that there is only one class; there is no system of four classes.
(ṣa) Here, a distinction of female organ, male organ, colour, shape, excrement, urine, smell, and voice is seen among cows, buffaloes, horses, elephants, donkeys, monkeys, goats, rams, and the like; but not among brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, and the rest. Therefore, from this lack of distinction too, there is only one class.
(sa) Moreover: just as a distinction of form, colour, feathers, and beak is seen among swans, pigeons, parrots, cuckoos, peacocks, and so forth, it is not so among brāhmaṇas and the rest. Therefore, from this lack of distinction too, there is only one class.
(ha) Just as a distinction is observed among trees such as the banyan, bakula, palāśa, aśoka, tamāla, nāgakeśara, śirīṣa, campaka, and so forth—namely, with respect to trunk, leaf, flower, fruit, bark, stone, seed, sap, and smell—it is not so that there is seen any distinction of limbs and parts among brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras, nor any differentiation of skin, flesh, blood, bone, semen, excrement, colour, and shape, nor any distinction of childbirth. Therefore, from this lack of distinction too, there is only one class.
(kṣa) Furthermore, O brāhmaṇa: by the sameness of pleasure, pain, life, mental operation, worldly activity, death, birth, fear, sexual intercourse, and treatment, there is simply no distinction among brāhmaṇas and the rest.
(tra) And let this be understood: just as there is no difference of class among fruits produced from a single tree, as in the case of fruits of the udumbara and breadfruit trees. For of the udumbara and the breadfruit, some fruits grow from the branches, some from the trunk, some from the stem, and some from the root; yet there is no difference among them such that ‘This is a brāhmaṇa fruit, this a kṣatriya fruit, this a vaiśya fruit, this a śūdra fruit,’ because they are produced from a single tree. Likewise, there is no difference among human beings either, because they are produced from a single person.

(jña) And there is another fault: if the brāhmaṇa is born from the mouth, whence is the birth of the brāhmaṇa woman? If [you say] from the mouth indeed, alas, then there would be the contingency of [her being] your sister! Thus, what is permissible and impermissible for sexual union could not be determined, and that is utterly contrary to the ways of the world. Therefore, the condition of being a brāhmaṇa is variable.

(a) The arrangement of the four classes is surely established through distinct actions. And likewise, it was declared by Vaiśampāyana when questioned by Yudhiṣṭhira that the four classes arise from distinct actions:
The renowned son of Pāṇḍu, named Yudhiṣṭhira,
approached Vaiśampāyana and, with folded hands, inquired:

‘Who are those that are called brāhmaṇas, or what is the mark of a brāhmaṇa?
This I wish to know, sir; please explain it to me.’

Vaiśampāyana said:
Endowed with virtues such as forbearance, having laid down the rod, free from meat-eating,
he does not kill any living beings: this is the first mark of a brāhmaṇa.

When he never takes another’s property, whether on the road or in a house,
if it has not been given: this is the second mark of a brāhmaṇa.

Having abandoned a cruel nature, free from mine-ness, devoid of possessions,
who wanders always liberated: this is the third mark of a brāhmaṇa.

Sexual intercourse with divine or human women, and even among animals,
is completely and always abandoned: this is the fourth mark of a brāhmaṇa.

Truth is purity, compassion is purity, restraint of the senses is purity,
compassion for all beings is purity, and austerity is purity as the fifth.

The twice-born who is endowed with these five marks—
him I would call a brāhmaṇa; the rest are śūdras, O Yudhiṣṭhira.

Not by family, nor by birth, but by actions does one become a brāhmaṇa;
for even a caṇḍāla established in proper conduct is a brāhmaṇa, O Yudhiṣṭhira. || 40

Moreover, it was further said by Vaiśampāyana:
Formerly, this entire world was of one class, O Yudhiṣṭhira;
through distinction in deeds and actions the system of four classes was established.

All mortals indeed are born from a womb; all produce urine and feces;
and all share the same senses and sense-objects; therefore, it is by virtues of conduct that they are twice-born.

Even a śūdra endowed with good conduct and virtues becomes a brāhmaṇa;
even a brāhmaṇa devoid of righteous deeds becomes lower than a śūdra.

And this is the statement of Vaiśampāyana:
If even a śūdra has crossed the dreadful ocean of the five senses,
to him boundless gifts should be given, O Yudhiṣṭhira.

Birth is not what is seen, O King; virtues are the bringers of welfare.
He whose life is for the sake of dharma, whose life is for the sake of others,
who practices forbearance day and night—him the gods know as a brāhmaṇa.

Those who, abandoning dwelling in a house, remain desiring liberation,
unattached to desires, O son of Kuntī, they are the brāhmaṇas, O Yudhiṣṭhira.

Non-harming, freedom from mine-ness, avoidance of improper deeds,
and cessation of passion and hatred: this is the mark of a brāhmaṇa.

Forbearance, compassion, self-restraint, generosity, truth, purity, mindfulness, tender care,
learning, discernment, and faith: this is the mark of a brāhmaṇa.

Better is a well-restrained vipra, even if his essence is only the Gāyatrī,
than an unrestrained knower of the four Vedas who eats everything and sells everything.

The destination of a celibate who has resided [in celibacy] for even a single night,
they cannot attain with a thousand sacrifices, O Yudhiṣṭhira.

He who has crossed over all the Vedas, who has bathed in all holy waters,
and who, liberated, practices dharma—him alone they know as a brāhmaṇa.

When one commits no cruel sin against any beings
in body, mind, or speech, then one attains to brahman. || Thus.

This which has been spoken by us to destroy the delusion
of the twice-born whose intellects are ruined:
let the wise accept it if it is reasonable, or reject it if it be unreasonable.

This is the work of the revered master of perfection Aśvaghoṣa. Auspiciousness!
Even a caṇḍāla established in proper conduct, the gods know him to be a brāhmaṇa. | — Words of Vyāsa, cited in Yatidharma, p. 37
The barbarians originating from Egypt, instructed by Kāśyapa himself,
consecrated from the śūdra class, attained to the brāhmaṇa class. | — Bhaviṣya Purāṇa, Pratisarga, fourth section
Those barbarians became Vaiṣṇavas through the influence of Rāmānanda. | — Bhaviṣya Purāṇa, Pratisarga, 4.21.54
61. śvayuvamaghonāmataddhite | Pāṇini Grammar Sūtra, 6.4.133
62. dṛptaṃ, Bengal manuscript
63. utpannā, Pune, Madras, Bengal manuscript
64. brāhma kṣatriya, Bengal manuscript
65. ya, Madras manuscript
66. -va-, Pune manuscript
67. vṛṣalīphenapītasya | Manusmṛti, 3.19
68. Aṅgiras, 1.48; Āpastamba, 8.7; Vyāsa, 4.67
69. Taking a śūdra woman to his bed, a brāhmaṇa falls into a degraded state;
the ancestors and gods do not eat of [his offerings], nor does he go to heaven.
— Manusmṛti, 3.17–18; Mahābhārata, Anuśāsanaparvan, 47.9
He whose food a śūdra woman cooks every day, and who has a śūdra woman as mistress of the household,
shunned by the ancestors and gods, that twice-born goes to the Raurava hell. || — Vyāsa, 4.68
70. -canaprā-, Bengal manuscript
71. Satyakāma Jābāla: “Sir, I do not know of what family lineage I am. I asked my mother; she replied to me: ‘Moving about much as a maidservant in my youth, I obtained you. As such, I do not know of what family lineage you are. My name is Jabālā and your name is Satyakāma.’ So I am Satyakāma Jābāla, sir.”
... He said to him: “A non-brāhmaṇa could not declare this. Fetch the sacrificial firewood, gentle one; I will initiate you.” (See Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.4 for the parallel passage)
72. hariṇī, ariṇī, Madras manuscript
73. kaṭhino, Bengal manuscript
74. (See verses 23–26)
Born from the womb of a doe, the great sage Ṛṣyaśṛṅga
became a brāhmaṇa through ascetic penance; therefore birth is not the cause.
Born from the womb of a dog-cooker woman, the father of Vyāsa, O king,
became a brāhmaṇa through ascetic penance; therefore birth is not the cause.
Born from the womb of an owl, the great sage called Kaṇāda
became a brāhmaṇa through ascetic penance; therefore birth is not the cause.
And born from the womb of a courtesan, the great sage Vasiṣṭha
became a brāhmaṇa through ascetic penance; therefore birth is not the cause.