Hindu Administrative Institutions c8.s2.19

c8.s2.19

It is to be regretted that a distinguished Vedic scholar like Eggeling should have fallen into this error. There is no reason even to suppose that there were in ancient India a trained priestly class as such, or any priestly colleges like those of Rome or any like conception of heirarchy. Prof. Hopkins writes: ‘They did not live in monasteries like the Buddhists. They did not draw salaries like the Christians. All that they had to live on was what was given them. They were not permitted to earn a living by worldly means. No wonder they were always rather profuse in praising gifts.’ Evidence is equally wanting to prove that such sacerdotal offices were lucrative, or rather that the priests aimed at self-advancement at the expense of the sovereign or the ruling class. There was no priestly department in the state. To quote Prof. Hopkins again, ‘While the Brahmanas never organized into monastic bodies but dwelt apart each in his own home living on private emoluments and daily alms, the Buddhists built enormous establishments which being supported as they were built by state patronage as well as by private benefactions flooded the country with an idle army of begging friars and even from the beginning became a refuge for lazy incompetents, as later (outside of India) they became hot-beds of immorality and political intrigue.’¹