Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c19.s2.t2: B. Under Vijayanagara

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c19.s2.t2

Language
English

B. Under Vijayanagara

v2.c19.s2.t2.1

The general status of the Brahman in Vijayanagara has been thus given by Paes: "These Brahmans are like friars with us, and they count them as holy men—I speak of the Brahman priests and the lettered men of the pagodas—because although the king has many Brahmans, they are officers of the towns and cities and belong to the government of them, others are merchants, and others live by their own property and cultivation, and the fruits which grow in their inherited grounds. Those who have charge of the temples are learned men, and eat nothing which suffers death, neither flesh nor fish, nor anything which makes broth red, for they say that it is blood. Some of the other Brahmans whom I have mentioned, who seek to serve God, and to do penance, and to live a life like that of the priests..."²

v2.c19.s2.t2.2

² Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 245.

v2.c19.s2.t2.3

The above description may appear to be a condemnation of the Brahman from the orthodox point of view, since he had taken to a life which was other than that of piety and learning. But it is precisely here that the interest of the Brahmanical question lies—in the rigour with which he clung to the old rules which made him lead a life of devotion and study, and in the laxity with which he apparently transgressed the dictates of the classical theorists, which compelled him to cast his lot with the common people. This will be made clear when we enumerate the different occupations of the Brahmans in Vijayanagara. The presence of the Brahman was indeed felt in diverse fields of activity. As minister of the king, he was responsible to some extent for the success or failure of the State policy; as governor over a large province, he exercised the functions of an administrator; as mediator in love matters, he caused commotion between rival royal families; as master of riches, he added to the increased wealth of the kingdom; and as the champion of the castes below him, he sometimes advocated the cause of social reform.

v2.c19.s2.t2.4

But it was not so much in the fulfilment of any one of the above duties that he seemed to violate the dignity attached to his own calling as in the manner in which he assumed to himself the privilege and rank of a general. This was not, one admits, an innovation of the Vijayanagara times. So early as A.D. 1128 some Brahmans had already exchanged their hereditary vocation for that of the Kshatriyas. At least so it appears from the instance of the Brahman soldier Ravi Daṇḍanāyaka, the conqueror of the Seven Mālavas, under Tribhuvanamalla Pāṇḍya Dēva in that year.¹

v2.c19.s2.t2.5

¹ 128 of 1913; Rangachari, Top. List. I, By. 183, pp. 281-282.

v2.c19.s2.t2.6

The Vijayanagara Brahman needed no such justification. From the days of the establishment of the Vijayanagara Empire, the activities of the Brahman generals had been linked with those of others who were responsible for the rejuvenation of Hindu political life. We have seen how the victories of Goppaṇārya, or Gōpaṇa, enabled Kampaṇa Oḍeyar to consolidate the provinces of the south.² Of Mādhava, a descendant of the Brahman Chāuṇḍa, an inscription dated A. D. 1368 narrates that he won fame as a conqueror of "many countries on the shores of the Western Ocean".³ It seems to have been the custom for the rāja-gurus, or royal priests, to accompany the kings on their expeditions. Thus we find Vyāsarāya going to the south along with Sāḷuva Nṛisiṃha.⁴ Even ordinary Brahmans contributed their share to the military annals of the times. A certain Brahman named Āpatsahāya of Tirukkaḍavūr took part in the Raichur campaign conducted by Kṛishṇa Dēva Rāya.⁵ The old tradition of the king to have by his side Brahman generals was maintained under that ruler. The most famous name of a Brahman general during Kṛishṇa Dēva Rāya's times is that of Rayasam Koṇḍamarusayya.¹ In later Vijayanagara history we have Tiruchchirambala Bhaṭṭan, a native of Tiruviḍaimarudūr, who joined Viṭhṭhala's army in Travancore;² and Gōvinda Dikshita, the minister-general of Achyutappa Nāyaka, the Viceroy over the Chōḷa capital.³

v2.c19.s2.t2.7

² Supra Volume I., Ch. I; A. S. R. for 1907-8, p. 240; Ep. Ind., VI, p. 322, seq. Madhurāvijayam, Intr. pp. 26-7.

v2.c19.s2.t2.8

³ E. C. VII, Sk. 281, p. 146.

v2.c19.s2.t2.9

⁴ Sōmanātha, Vyāsayōgicharitam, Intr., pp. xci-xcv, 40.

v2.c19.s2.t2.10

⁵ 47 of 1906; Ep. Report for 1907, p. 85; A. S. R. for 1908-9, p. 182.

v2.c19.s2.t2.11

¹ *Ep. Report* for 1912, p. 80. There were others of course equally well known—Sāḷuvu Timma, Sāḷuva Gōvindayya, Sāḷuva Vīra Narasimha, Karaṇiga Mangarasayya, and Bācharasayya. See Sarasvaty, *J. I. H.*, IV. P. III, p. 85.

v2.c19.s2.t2.12

² 140 of 1895; *Ep. Report* for 1900, p. 29; Heras, *Aravidu*, p. 142.

v2.c19.s2.t2.13

³ Tanjāvuri Andhra Rājulu Charitra, *The Sources*, pp. 323, 335; Heras, ibid., p. 288.

v2.c19.s2.t2.14

The validity of the claims of the Brahmans to take upon themselves the duties of the Kshatriyas now deserves to be examined, especially from the standpoint of classical and Vijayanagara theory. Manu says: "Twice born men may take up arms when (they are) hindered (in the fulfilment of) their duties, when destruction (threatens) the twice-born castes (varṇa) in (evil) times, in their own defence, in a strife for the fees of officiating priests, and in order to protect women and Brāhmaṇas; he who (under such circumstances) kills in the cause of right, commits no sin".⁴ According to Nārada: "In times of distress, a Brahman is allowed to gain his substance in the mode prescribed for the caste next to him in rank; or he may gain his substance like a Vaiśya..."⁵ Nārada, however, enjoins this stipulation: "When a Brahman has lived through times of distress, with the wealth acquired by following the occupations of a Kshatriya, he must perform a penance and relinquish the occupations of a Kshatriya. When, however, a Brahman takes delight in those occupations and persists in them, he is declared a Kāṇḍapṛishṭha (professional soldier) and must be expelled from society, because he has swerved from the path of duty".⁶

v2.c19.s2.t2.15

⁴ *Manu*, VIII, 348-9, pp. 314-15.

v2.c19.s2.t2.16

⁵ *Nārada*, I, 4, 56, p. 55.

v2.c19.s2.t2.17

⁶ Ibid. I, 4, 59-60, p. 56.

v2.c19.s2.t2.18

Gautama ordains the following: "On failure of the (occupations lawful for a Brāhmaṇa) he may live by the occupations of a Kshatriya."[1] This is, of course, based on the injunctions of Manu. Baudhāyana, while repeating the statements of Gautama and the earlier lawgivers, introduces a detail which is interesting. "Now they quote also (the following verse): 'Out of regard for the sacred law a Brāhmaṇa and a Vaiśya may take up arms (for the protection of) cows or Brāhmaṇas, or when a confusion of the castes (threatens to take place)'".[2]

v2.c19.s2.t2.19

A knowledge of military science is one of the most essential qualifications of a royal priest, as given in the Śukranīti. In this mediaeval code a royal priest has been thus defined: "One who is versed in mantras and rituals, master of the three sciences, skilful at work, conqueror of the senses, subduer of anger, devoid of greed and passions, equipped with a knowledge of six Aṅgas (Vēdāṅgas,) and of the science of Archery with all its branches, one who knows the science of moral as well as religious interests, one fearing whose anger even the king takes to virtuous ways of life, one who is well up in Nīti Śāstra, and master of military implements and tactics is the Priest."[3] In fact, Śukrāchārya does not seem to have reserved the duties and privileges of warriors only to the Kshatriyas.[4]

v2.c19.s2.t2.20

The occasions when the Brahmans could exchange duties legitimate to their order for those of the Kshatriyas, may be summarized as follows:

v2.c19.s2.t2.21

(a) When their own lawful occupations could no longer be continued;

v2.c19.s2.t2.22

(b) When there was a danger of an admixture of castes; and

v2.c19.s2.t2.23

(c) When there was need for protecting women and cows.

v2.c19.s2.t2.24

In other words, when the people were confronted with a danger which threatened to undermine their life,—political and social, religious and economic,—the Brahmans could legally eschew the cause of the scriptures for that of the sword. The Vijayanagara age was precisely such an epoch; and no one recognized the need of entrusting the Brahmans with the responsibilities of a warrior so much as the Emperor Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya who, in his *Amuktamālyada*, writes thus: "Because a Brahman would stand to his post even in times of danger and would continue in service though reduced to becoming a subordinate to a Kshatriya or a Śūdra, it is always advisable for a king to make Brahmans as his officers".¹ He further says: "Entrust your fortresses to such Brahmans (Generals) as you are best acquainted with. Do not keep them weak, but give them such strong forces that they can be devoid of fear from their enemies".² Then again: "That king can lay his hand on his breast and sleep peacefully who appoints as masters of his fortresses such Brahmans as are attached to himself, are learned in many sciences and arts, are addicted to *Dharma*, are heroic and have been in his service since before his time, who make arrangements for storing in those fortresses tiger's cheese (?Tel. *Pulijunnu*) and other articles to last for a generation, who gives to the subordinate chiefs (*Sāmanta*) lands and other things without lessening in the slightest degree the arrangement with them, who increases his treasures by multiplying his income and lessening expenditure, and by seeing that the people are without trouble, who keeps watch on the territory of weakened enemies by his spies and capturing them suddenly like the crane which catches fish, who sees that neither he nor his subjects suffer and who gives trouble only to his enemies."³

v2.c19.s2.t2.25

¹ Gautama, VII, 6, p. 212. Cf. Vasiṣṭha, II, 22, p. 12.

v2.c19.s2.t2.26

² Baudhāyana, II, 18, p. 236.

v2.c19.s2.t2.27

³ Śukranīti, II., ll. 156-60, p. 69.

v2.c19.s2.t2.28

⁴ Sarkar, Pos. Back., Bk. II, P. I, pp. 94-5.

v2.c19.s2.t2.29

¹ *Amuktamālyada*, v. 217; *J. I. H.*, IV, p. 66.

v2.c19.s2.t2.30

² *Ibid.*, v. 207; *ibid.*, p. 65.

v2.c19.s2.t2.31

³ *Ibid.*, v. 261; *ibid.*, pp. 72-3.

v2.c19.s2.t2.32

Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya was to a certain extent justified in bestowing praise on Brahmans who had proved their worth as governors and generals. Since the times of Harihara II, it had been the custom to entrust administrative work to qualified Brahmans. Thus Mādhava Rāya, the Brahman-general already referred to in a previous page, was temporarily entrusted with the government of the town (and district) of Jayanti. It was during this time that he conquered Gōva (mod. Goa) in Śaka 1313 (A. D. 1391-2).¹ Another famous Brahman-governor was Viṭhṭhaṇṇa Oḍeyar, who was the Viceroy over Āraga in A. D. 1403. He was the son of Bommaṇa, who was the son of the well known minister Saṅkapa of the Bharadvāja-gōtra. His praise is thus sung in an inscription of the same date: "And, at the time when, by that Mahārāya's order, the Brahma-Kshatri, a son of Hēmādri, an initiating priest for all gifts, a son to the lotus the line of Saṅkapa and Rāyapa, son of a chief Brahman minister, proficient in learning, a royal swan in the lotus pond of the learned, a moon to the chakōras poets, remover of the poverty of his servants, a flamingo at the lotus feet of Kriyāśakti-guru muniśvara, devoted to the worship of Triyambaka, the son of Virupāmbikā".² Then again, in another inscription of the same year, we have the following eulogy of Viṭhṭhaṇṇa, both as a learned man and as an administrator: "...the chief minister Viṭhṭhala, ever beloved, versed in the sciences and arts,...Some yōgis took him for Kṛishṇa; certain learned men, for Rāmachandra; some truthful ones, for Yudhishṭhira; the performers of rites, for Svāyambhuva; supplicants thought him the tree of plenty; enemies, a consuming sun; his subjects, as their father (tāta):—such a mine of good qualities was Viṭhṭhalādhīśvara...The hēmādri gift did Viṭhṭhala-mantri but once make, and forthwith there was a hēmādri gift from house to house of all the Brahmans....An abode of all learning and fortune, appointed by his king to the government of the Āraga-dēśa, he was protecting with unfailing greatness all merit, fame and progress".³ An epigraph dated A. D. 1405 calls him "a diksha-guru in regard to all the gifts mentioned in the Hēmādri".⁴ Annamārādhya alias Kompalli was a Brahman appointed as governor of the city-gates in A. D. 1429-1430. It is said of him that he "has studied four vēdas and understood them by the Śaiva scriptures; he is the Lord of the northern gate at Śrīśaila and is renowned on earth".¹ No account of Brahman-governors may be thought adequate without mention being made of Sāḷuva Timma, and of his nephew Nādenḍla Gōpa-mantri, both of whom were governors of Koṇḍavīḍu.² The following incident of A.D. 1614 described by Floris deals with the Brahman governor of Musulipatam. "In the meanwhile, Wencatadra (the son of the governor) remayned aboard without eating or drinking. For he being a Bramene, may neither eate nor drinke in any mans house but what he hath dressed himselfe; which made mee so to pittie him, that I offered if any two Moores of qualitie would come aboard in his place, I would let him go on shoare".³

v2.c19.s2.t2.33

¹ Jacob, J. Bom. B. R. A. S, IV, pp. 107-8, 115; Weber, I. A., VI, p. 162, n; A. S. R. for 1907-8, p. 238, n. (2).

v2.c19.s2.t2.34

² E. C., VI, Kp. 52, pp. 86-7, op. cit.

v2.c19.s2.t2.35

³ Ibid., Kp. 53, p. 87.

v2.c19.s2.t2.36

⁴ E. C., VIII, Tl. 12; p. 165. On Hēmādri, see Weber, I. A., VI, p. 161, n.

v2.c19.s2.t2.37

¹ Butterworth-Chetty, *Nellore, Ins.*, I, p. 16,

v2.c19.s2.t2.38

² Sewell. *For. Emp.*, p. 131; *Lists.*, II, p. 188.

v2.c19.s2.t2.39

³ Floris, *Purchas, Pilgrims*, III, pp. 340-1.

v2.c19.s2.t2.40

From the remarks of Paes it appears that Brahmans had to some extent become agriculturists. He writes thus: "The other temples aforesaid are made in the same manner, but this one is the principal one and the oldest; they all have many buildings and gardens with many trees, in which the Brahmans cultivate their vegetables and the other herbs that they eat".⁴ Obviously this refers to the cultivation of vegetables for the daily consumption in their homes, although there is nothing strange in Brahmans taking to a life of agriculture in view of the freedom given to them by the early and mediaeval canonists.⁵

v2.c19.s2.t2.41

⁴ Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 262.

v2.c19.s2.t2.42

⁵ *Manu*, X, 81-3, 85, pp. 420, 421; *Gautama*, VII, 5, 24, X, 5-6, pp. 212-3, 228; *Vaśiṣṭha*, II, 24-6, p. 12, III, 1-3, pp. 16-17; *Baudhāyana* II, 2, 4, 19-21, p. 232; *Śukranīti*, IV, iii, ll. 37-9, p. 151.

v2.c19.s2.t2.43

For what vile purposes an outwardly pious Brahman could use his learning and entangle princes in the meshes of war is related by Firishtah who gives us the description of the Mudkal beauty and the war which Dēva Rāya I waged far her sake. "It happened that in the town of Moodkul lived a goldsmith, who had a daughter named Nehal of such exquisite beauty, that nature seemed to have exerted all her art to render her perfect. Agreeably to the custom of Hindoostan, her parents wished to betroth her in childhood to a youth of her own caste; but she requested that the ceremony might be delayed, with such earnestness, that it was put off. Sometime after, an old brahmin, who had been on a pilgrimage to Benares, stopping on his return at her father's house, was struck with the beauty of his daughter, adopted her as his child, and resolved to render her skilful in music and dancing, of which he was a perfect master. The brahmin continued nearly eighteen months with her family: at the end of which period, finding her fully accomplished, he took his leave, with a promise shortly to return, with proposals calculated for the honour of his pupil, and the advantage of her family. The brahmin, who had from the first designed to exalt his adopted daughter to the station of a princess, proceeded to Beejanuggur; and being introduced to the Ray, spoke in such praise of the maid that he resolved to possess her, and entreated the brahmin to solicit her in marriage. The request had been anticipated by the brahmin, and he accordingly agreed to assist him in the attainment of his wishes; on which, the Ray despatched him with rich gifts to the parents and offered to bestow the title of Rany, or Princess, on their beautiful daughter. The brahmin lost no time in his journey; and on his arrival at the goldsmith's house delivered to him and his wife the Ray's orders that they should repair with their child to Beejanuggur. They were overjoyed at such unexpected good fortune; and calling the maid, laid before her the rich gifts of the Ray, congratulated her on being so soon to be united to a great prince, and attempted to throw upon her neck a golden necklace set with jewels as the token of betrothal, and which, if done, the engagement could not have been broken off. The daughter, to the astonishment of her parents, refused to receive the necklace; observing, that whoever entered the harem of Beejanuggur was never afterwards permitted to see even her nearest relatives, and though they might be willing to sacrifice her for the wealth of the court, yet she was too fond of her parents to submit to an eternal separation from them, even for the splendour of the palace of Beejanuggur. This affectionate declaration, accompanied with tears, reconciled her parents to their disappointed hopes, who rather than use force, dismissed the brahmin with all his gifts,—and he returned to Beejanuggur without success.”¹

v2.c19.s2.t2.44

¹ Firishtah, Briggs, *The Rise* I, pp. 380-1. The next sentence which follows is this: “The maiden, subsequently, revealed to her parents, that she had long had an inward conviction that she should one day become the wife of a prince of the faith of Islam, and recommended them to await patiently the will of providence”. This subsequent revelation in favour of a Muhammadan Prince, makes one suspect that there is an element of improbability in the nice story told by Firishtah. B. A. S.

v2.c19.s2.t2.45

In political matters, too, the Brahmans could turn out into deceitful diplomats. An example of a wicked Brahman-diplomat of this type is that of Rāmayya Bhāskaruḍu, a subordinate of Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya. It was he who managed to have all the seventy-two nobles, the subordinates of the Reḍḍi kings, beheaded in the temple of Gōpinātha at Koṇḍavīḍu. The local chronicles contain the following details in connection with this dastardly incident. The Brahman was furnished with money, and directed to restore the magnificent temple of Gōpinātha Svāmi at the foot of Koṇḍavīḍu. A new image was to be consecrated and set up, and for the celebration of these rites, the presiding priest invited the seventy-two chiefs to descend from their hill fortress. “They came—the three score and twelve—and were all seated in the great hall. From thence one by one the officiating priest led them to the inner shrine to view the new representation of deity, and to bow before the image that the great Krishna Dēva Rāyalu had set up. As they stepped into the *antaralikam* or inner hall, and bowed at the threshold, two ruffians, who were concealed in the chamber, stepped forward, and before the victim had time to raise a cry, precipitated him into a deep well whose mouth it was impossible to discover amid the surrounding gloom. One by one each Reḍḍi Chieftain approached the shrine, and all shared one common fate, one common grave, and then all was easy for Krishna Dēva Rāyalu to seize the fort”.¹

v2.c19.s2.t2.46

¹ Boswell, I. A., I, p. 183; Sewell, Lists, II, p. 188; Ep. Report for 1915, p. 112.

v2.c19.s2.t2.47

The Brahmans, however, could divert their influence in more profitable channels. They could, for example, elevate the classes which were socially on a lower scale, and thus bring about social reform. One such instance is that of the Brahmans who invested 500 oil-mongers with the sacred thread. It is poet Diṇḍima—who was one of the mahājanas of Mulluṇḍrum alias Prauḍha-dēvarāyapuram, and probably a contemporary of Prauḍha Dēva Rāya,—who gives us these details. Although more particulars are not forthcoming, yet the fact that the oil-mongers still feel grateful to the Brahman family by accepting one of its members as their guru,² indicates to us that, at least in this one instance, the Brahmans have left behind them evidence of the service they rendered to the cause of society.

v2.c19.s2.t2.48

² Ep. Report for 1912, p. 90.

v2.c19.s2.t2.49

The generosity of the Vijayanagara monarchs enabled the Brahmans to amass great wealth. It was a policy of the rulers to endow them with large grants of land and money; and this seems to have culminated in the institution of a sort of a State fund called anandanidhi, for their sake, by Achyuta Rāya.³ The liberality of his illustrious predecessor was equally responsible for the wealthy position of the priestly class. Their riches may have partly caused the anti-Brahman feeling which was especially noticeable in the writings of the poets of the later ages. There is reason to believe that even the State, as typified by Rāma Rāja, was inclined to be rather unfriendly towards the members of the sacerdotal class, who had received the largest share of royal bounty in the days of Krishna Dēva Rāya and Achyuta Rāya. Even Krishna Dēva Rāya himself did not fail to observe the fallen condition of the Brahmans in his times. In his well known work, he says: “Why only kings ! even the Brahmans of this age do not possess the power of the Brahmans of those ages. A Brahman (Agastya) was able to drink away the water of the sea. Another sage (Viśvāmitra) was able to engage in creation as opposed to the creation (of Brahma). Another was able to avert the Brahmāstra by his staff (Brahmadaṇḍa). Is it proper that Brahmans of this age should give up acting up to their best ability because they do not have such powers? Have they ceased to command respect and worship from others in spite of their lessened powers?"¹ Then again he says, while dealing with persons who were qualified for government service: "Do not appoint a Brahman who swerves from the right conduct and who is bred in a Pakkaṇa (a Śabara suburb). Don't you know the story of how a Brahman once destroyed a crane which had saved his life, for a single day's meal?"²

v2.c19.s2.t2.50

³ Ep. Report for 1923, p. 119.

v2.c19.s2.t2.51

¹ Amuktamālyada, v. 285; J. I. H., IV, p. 77.

v2.c19.s2.t2.52

² Ibid., v. 210; ibid., p. 65.

v2.c19.s2.t2.53

To foreigners like Nuniz, the Brahmans sometimes appeared intolerable because of their wealth. That Portuguese chronicler narrates thus: "The King always gives large sums in charity; in the palace there are always two or three thousand Brahmans who are his priests, and to whom the King commands to give alms. These Brahman priests are very despicable men; they always have much money, and are so insolent that even by using blows the guards of the door cannot hold them in check."³

v2.c19.s2.t2.54

³ Sewell, For. Emp., pp. 379-80.

v2.c19.s2.t2.55

Rāma Rāja seems to have been thoroughly anti-Brahman as may be inferred from the following statement in the Mahisūra Narapati Vijaya:

v2.c19.s2.t2.56

जामाताभूनमहिपालः रामराय इति स्मृतः ।
स कामवशमापन्नः नित्यं द्यूते च निष्ठितः ॥
ब्राह्मणानां गुरुणां च नित्यं अप्रियमातनोत् ॥⁴

v2.c19.s2.t2.57

⁴ My. Arch. Report for 1907, para. 53, cited by Venkoba Rao, Vyāsayōgicharita, Intr., p. clxvi.

v2.c19.s2.t2.58

Perhaps it was this which Nuniz wanted to convey when he referred to Rāma Rāja in the following words: "...for he (Achyuta Rāya) has never done anything except those things that are desired by his two brothers-in-law, who are men very evilly disposed and great Jews".¹

v2.c19.s2.t2.59

¹ Sewell, For. Emp., pp. 367, 369.

v2.c19.s2.t2.60

From the ending of certain epigraphs it appears that some Brahmans forsook their rules to receive gifts, and were, therefore, not held in high esteem by the people. The inscription which gives us this information is dated A.D. 1395, and it ends thus: "The Brahman who forsakes the rules for receiving gifts becomes a monkey; and the giver becomes a foul-scented jackal in the burning ground".² If receiving gifts (*pratigraha-vidhi-tyāgi viprō bhavatu markkataḥ*) refers to begging, then, evidently the people were justified in condemning such a Brahman, for it was a violation of one of the rules laid down in the code of Manu: "One must not consider as a guest a Brāhmaṇ who dwells in the same village, nor one who seeks his livelihood by social intercourse, even though he has come to a house where (there is) wife, and where sacred fires are kept. Those foolish householders, who constantly seek (to live on) the food of others, become, in consequence of that (baseness) after death the cattle of those who gave them food".³ Vaśiṣṭha clearly says: "The king shall punish that village where Brāhmaṇas, unobservant of their sacred duties and ignorant of the Veda, subsist by begging; for it feeds robbers".⁴

v2.c19.s2.t2.61

² E. C., VIII, Sb. 382, p. 68, text, p. 179.

v2.c19.s2.t2.62

³ Manu, III, 103-4, p. 94.

v2.c19.s2.t2.63

⁴ Vaśiṣṭha, III, 4, p. 17.

v2.c19.s2.t2.64

Some Brahmans, as we shall see, seem to have refused the consecrated food (*tīrtha-prasāda*) of gods. Such of them who were found guilty of this offence were declared Cāṇḍālas or outcastes.

v2.c19.s2.t2.65

It is not surprising, therefore, that a strong feeling against the Brahmans should have been felt in the land, as is evident not only from the shrewd hints which even foreign travellers were compelled to make but also from the tirades which the poets, as preachers of morality, levelled against the members of the Brahman community.¹ This anti-Brahman feeling gathered strength with the decline of Vijayanagara as a potent factor in the history of the country; and poets and writers, like Vēmana and Dhūrjaṭi, voiced the sentiments of the people in the following words: "His forehead (i.e., of a Brahman with the caste-marks) is that of a worshipper; his mouth, that of a wolf; and his heart that of a roaming demon: is he so shameless as to say he has learnt of the divinity? If a man still has in his heart the principles of a pariar, and yet scorns pariars, how should he become twice-born, while devoid of every good quality? There is no sin greater than that of falsehood : this is an abomination perpetually in the mouth : what vagabonds are several who call themselves twice-born? The lords of the earth (i.e., Brahmans) say, 'we are pure; we are learned in the scriptures', they scorn all who are in their natural state. Truly the poorest palmer is better than such boasters!"² Then again :

v2.c19.s2.t2.66

¹ For the anti-Brahman feeling in the south, read Barnett, *Heart of India*, pp. 93, seq.

v2.c19.s2.t2.67

² Vēmana, *Verses*, Bk. III., vv. 163-6, p. 135 (Brown). In the original they run thus:

v2.c19.s2.t2.68

పోసలు భక్తుడయ్య నోరు కోడెయ్యు,
మనసు భూకాము వలె మలయగాను,
'శివుని గని యె'న్న పిట్టెటుగాకో |
మాదిగ చెయువులను మనసు లో చెట్టుక,
మాదిగలను దెగడు మాడ్కి నెపుడు
మంచిగుణము లేక మరిద్విజాడెట్లగు?
కల్లలాడు కంటె కష్టంబు మరిలేదు,
కష్ట మెపుడు నోలిగలియుండు.
ద్విజుడననుట చూడదిమ్మరితనమితపది.
విప్రపరులు నుచు, వేదంబుజదువుము,
ప్రాకృతులను జూచి పరిహసింము,
ధరణి సురలకన్న దాసరి మకమెయ్యు.

v2.c19.s2.t2.69

"To give up food and apparel, and lie about in the porches of temples, is the fate written for *their sins* in the foreheads of monks: what would they be worse for familiarity with women?"¹ "After going through all his studies, and attaining consummate wisdom, after making nothing of divinity, the *moment he sees a fair woman he forgets all his sanctity*."²

v2.c19.s2.t2.70

¹ Vēmana, *Verses*, Bk. III, v. 260, p. 155 (Brown). కూడుచీర బాసి గుళ్లపందలబడు నట్లువ్రాసె బ్రహ్మయరులనుదుట, తోయజాక్షిశర కోపంబు లంటునా?

v2.c19.s2.t2.71

² Ibid., v. 270, p. 157. చదువులెల్ల జదివి, సర్వజ్ఞుడైయుండి, బ్రహ్మవిద్యలెల్ల పడట గలిపి, యిరుక యోని జూచి, పరమ యోగముమాను. See also, vv. 191-2, p. 141. The date of Vēmana is a debatable point. C. P. Brown places him "about the beginning of the seventeenth century of our era". *Verses of Vēmana*, Preface, p. 111 (1829). Chenchiah and Bhujanga Rao remark: "It is probable that he lived in the beginning of the fifteenth century." *A History of Telugu Literature*, p. 99. (Heritage of India Series). Vēmana's description may be compared with that given by Lakshmipati Dhūrjaṭi, *Hamsa-vimśati Kathegalu*, p. 18 (Trans. into Kanarese by Krishnayya, Bangalore, 1871).

Linked texts (11)