A History of Sanskrit Literature: Classical Period, Vol. I c4.14

Language: English

c4.14.1

But from the 6th century onwards we find that the poets often manifest a tendency for display of learning and scholarship and skill in the manipulation of words and verbosity and a studied use of *alaṃkāras*. We know that in the 4th century Vasubandhu had written his *Abhidharmakoṣa*. In this great work he mercilessly criticised not only other schools of Buddhism but also the Hindu schools of philosophy, such as *Sāṃkhya*, *Vaiśeṣika* and the like. Diṅnāga and Vātsyāyana flourished about the 5th century A.D. and from this time onward the quarrel of the philosophers and learned scholars of divergent schools began to grow into such importance that it practically influenced every other department of thought. The old simplicity of style which we find in Patañjali and Śavara had now disappeared. Śaṅkara and Jayanta who flourished probably in the 7th and 9th century are indeed noble to India had come to live in a country peopled by aliens having a culture far below their own (excepting probably the Dravidians) whose cultural and other tastes were entirely different. The great problem before them was the problem of the fusion of races. It was the main concern of the leaders of society to protect the purity of the race, its culture and religion as far as possible. They initiated the system of *varṇāśrama* and enunciated rigorous regulations for the respective duties of the four *varṇas*.

c4.14.2

There is ample evidence in the Smṛtis that in spite of the rigorous regulations, these were often violated and as time passed on, rigours increased. Thus marriage with girls of lower *varṇas* which was allowed at one stage was entirely stopped in later times. There is, however, evidence to show that marriages took place not only with the girls of lower *varṇas* but many kings had devoted Greek wives. But still the problem of fusion of races gradually increased when the Huns, the Scythians and the Greeks not only entered the country and lived there, but became Hinduised. So long as many rulers of the country were given to military adventures and the people as a whole entered into commercial negotiations and intercourses with different countries and established settlements in different lands—the balance or the equilibrium of society had a dynamic vigour in it. Intercourse with other people on equal terms expanded the mental vista, but when, for reasons unknown, their came a period of stagnation and peple became more or less narrow and provincial, they lacked vigour and energy of free thought. In society the rigour of social rules increased, and people followed these rules in spite of the fact that obedience to such rules was in direct contradiction to the professed systems of philosophy.

c4.14.3

Philosophy became divested of social life and whatever divergence there might have been in the philosophical speculations of different sects and communities—they became equally loyal to the same *smṛti* laws. When the *smārta* followed the injunctions of *smṛti* on the belief that they all emanated from the Vedas, the Vaiṣṇava followed the same *smṛti* rules on the ground that they were the commandments of God. The maxim of the *Mīmāṃsā* was that no *smṛti* laws would have any validity if they are not supported by the Vedas. But there were really many *smṛti* laws about which no evidence could be found in the Vedas. The legal fiction was invented that where corroborative Vedic texts were not available, one should suppose that they existed but were lost. The whole effort was suicidal. It denied in principle the normal human fact that society is a human institution. With the change of condition and circumstances, material wants and means of production and external influences of diverse kinds, man must change and with the change of man, the social institutions, duties and obligations must also change. The attempt to bind with iron chains all movements of society, so that these must adapt themselves to the conditions that prevailed in Vedic times, was like the attempt of the Chinese to make the feet of the ladies manacled in iron shoes, so that when the lady grew to the adult age, her feet should remain like those of a baby.

c4.14.4

This extereme conservatism of social laws had an extremely depressive effect as regards the freedom of mind and it enslaved the temper of the mind and habituated it to respect the older traditions at the expense of common sense and wisdom. The elasticity of mind that we find in the *Mahābhārata* soon disappeared and people got themselves accustomed to think in terms invented for them by their predecessors. Yet it is not true that they were always faithful and loyal to the customs of Vedic times. Any Brahmin or community of Brahmins of influence could make a *smṛti* law which proved binding to successive generations of people. This may be illustrated by the case of beef-eating. Beef-eating is a recognised Vedic caustom and even to-day when marriage ceremonies are performed, there is a particular *mantra* which signifies that a cow has been brought for the feast of the bridegroom and the bridegroom replies out of pity that the cow need not be butchered for his gratification. But yet according to the later *smṛti*, cow-killing or beef-eating is regarded as one of the major crimes. Again, while sea-voyage was allowed in ancient times and therefore had the sanction of the Vedic literature, it has been prohibited by the later *smṛti*. The list of *kali-varjyas* may all be taken as instances of drawing up a tighter noose at the neck of the society.

c4.14.5

Thus, there was not merely the convenient fiction on behalf of the *smṛti* but even injunctions that were distinctly opposed to the older Vedic practices, which were forced upon the people by the later codifiers of *smṛti* for the guidance of society. It is difficult to understand how the injunctions of the *smṛti* writers derived any authoritative value. Probably in some cases many older instances had gone out of practice or become repugnant to the people, or that the codification of some *smṛti* writers might have had the backing of a ruling prince and was for the matter of that held sacred in his kingdom. But it may also have been that some *smṛti* writers had risen to great eminence and authority and by virtue of the peoples' confidence in him, his decisions became authoritative. In the case of Raghunandana, who lived in Navadwipa about 500 years ago, we find that either by personal influence or by propaganda he succeeded in making his views and interpretation stand supreme in Bengal in preference to the views of older *smṛti* authorities like Yājñavalkya or Vijñāneśvara.