Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c19: Chapter II. Varṇa

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c19

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. Varṇa

v2.c19.2

The number of works dealing with the origin and characteristics of the caste system in India is legion. Most of them, however, concern themselves with the detailed description of the bewildering variety of castes and subdivisions of castes in modern times and their present religious and social customs and usages. The origin of caste has given rise to great speculation and several schools of thought have arisen. Generally individual authors lay undue emphasis on one element or attach far too much importance to one point in tracing the origin of the caste system and its ramifications, such as race (Risley), tribe (Ibbetson), occupation (Nesfield). The study of the origin and development of caste in India is one of deep and absorbing interest to all students of sociology. A complete and critical examination of the several theories of caste advanced by distinguished authors and a detailed description of the hundreds of castes and subcastes now found in India is far beyond the scope of the present work. For those who want to make a thorough study of the most important works on caste a modest list is given in the footnote below.⁵⁰

v2.c19.3

⁵⁰ J. N. Bhattacharya's 'Hindu castes and sects' (1896); E. A. H. Blunt's 'Caste system of Northern India' (1931); W. Crooke's 'Tribes and castes of N. W. Provinces and Oudh' 4 Vol. (1896); N. K. Dutt's 'Origin and growth of caste in India' (1931) and 'Aryanization of India' (1925); R. E. Enthoven's 'Tribes and castes of Bombay' 3 Vol. (1920); R. Fick's 'Social Organisation in North-east India in Buddha's time,' translation by Dr. S. K. Maitra 1920 (deals only with the Buddhist Jātaka materials); Dr. Ghurye's 'Caste and race in India' (1932); Ibbetson's 'Punjab castes' (1881, reprint in 1916); S. V. Ketkar's 'History of caste in India' 2 Vol. (1909 and 1911); Kitt's 'Compendium of castes found in India' (1885); Nesfield's 'A brief review of the caste system of the North-west Provinces and Oudh' (1885); O'Malley's 'Indian caste customs' (1932) and 'India's social heritage' (1934); Hayavadan Rao's 'Indian Caste system' (1934); Risley's 'Tribes and castes of Bengal' 1891 (mostly anthropometric data) and 'People of India' 2nd ed. 1915; R. V. Russell's 'Tribes and castes of Central (*Continued from last page*) Provinces’ 4 volumes (1916); Emile Senart’s ‘Les caste dans l’Inde’ (1896) translated by Sir E. Ross (1936); M. A. Sherring’s ‘Hindu Tribes and Castes’ 3 volumes (1872–1881); G. Slater’s ‘Dravidian element in Hindu culture’ (1914); Steele’s ‘Law and customs of Hindu castes’ (1868); Thurston and Rangachari’s ‘Caste and Tribes of South India’ 7 volumes (1909); John Wilson’s ‘Indian castes’ 2 vol. (1877); ‘Mysore Tribes and castes’ by S. V. Nanjundayya and Rao Bahadur L. K. Ananthakrishna Iyer, vol. I–IV with several hundred illustrations. Besides these there are numerous papers published in Journals such as Weber’s in ‘Indische Studien’ vol. X pp. 1–160 (very exhaustive as to Vedic material); Dr. Ghurye’s on ‘Ethnic theory of caste’ in ‘Man in India’ vol. IV (1924) pp. 209–271.

v2.c19.4.1

The caste system has been highly eulogised and also most severely condemned by Western writers. Sidney Low in his ‘Vision of India’ (pp. 262–263, 2nd ed. of 1907) speaks of the beneficent aspect of the caste system in the following eloquent passage ‘There is no doubt that it is the main cause of the fundamental stability and contentment by which Indian society has been braced up for centuries against the shocks of politics and the cataclysms of Nature. It provides every man with his place, his career, his occupation, his circle of friends. It makes him at the outset a member of a corporate body, it protects him through life from the canker of social jealousy and unfulfilled aspirations; it ensures him companionship and a sense of community with others in like case with himself. The caste organization is to the Hindu his club, his trade union, his benefit society, his philanthropic society. There are no work-houses in India and none are as yet needed.’ Abbe Dubois, who wrote about 130 years ago after being in close touch with Hindus of all castes for 15 years as a missionary, remarks (in his work on the character, manners and customs of the people of India, translated into English and published in London in 1817) ‘I consider the institution of castes among the Hindu nations as the happiest effort of their legislation;

v2.c19.4.2

and I am well convinced that, if the people of India never sunk into a state of barbarism, and if, when almost all Europe was plunged in that dreary gulf, India kept up her head, preserved and extended the sciences, the arts and civilization, it is wholly to the distinction of castes that she is indebted for that high celebrity’ (p. 14) and he devotes several pages to the justification of this remark. Maine in his ‘Ancient Law' (new edition of 1930 p. 17) characterises it as 'the most disastrous and blighting of all human institutions.' Sherring in 'Hindu tribes and castes' vol. III p. 293 says 'it is the most baneful, hard-hearted and cruel social system that could possibly be invented for damning the human race'. On the other hand Meredith Townsend in 'Europe and Asia' (edition of 1901 p. 72) wrote 'I firmly believe caste to be a marvellous discovery, a form of socialism which through ages protected Hindu Society from anarchy and from the worst evils of industrial and competitive life—it is an automatic poor law to begin with and the strongest form known of Trades Union'. There are others,⁵¹ though their number is small, that believe that the caste system was an invention, an artificial product, due to the machinations of crafty brāhmaṇas. Every great institution has its extremes of good or evil.

v2.c19.4.3

This work will endeavour to steer clear of downright and hypercritical condemnation of the caste system due to relying on modern standpoints and conditions of society and unthinking adulation thereof. It will try to present and balance facts and though it cannot help passing judgments it will leave the reader free to judge for himself as far as possible. In the present work the discussion will be mostly confined to the evidence of Sanskrit literary monuments, ancient and medieval. An attempt will be made to trace the origin of caste from Vedic times, to exhibit theories of the Dharmasūtrakāras, other smṛtikāras and commentators on the subject and to describe the peculiar ceremonies, privileges, duties and responsibilities of Hindu castes as gathered from these works in Sanskrit. To discuss the feasibility or desirability of totally destroying the caste system or the ways and means of attaining that end is deemed to be outside the legitimate limits of this volume. It may, however, be expressly stated as the author's opinion, in order to avoid misunderstandings or fruitless speculations about his personal views, that he does not think that the caste system was an artificial product due to the intrigues, greed and cunning of brāhmaṇas, nor does he hold that it is feasible to destroy the whole edifice of the caste system in the near future.

v2.c19.4.4

In the cities we may find some people taking their food together but the real India is in the villages, where in spite of the loud denunciations of reformers for a hundred years, the restrictions on taking food and inter-caste marriages are almost as rigid as they once were. Our efforts must be directed to wide and rapid spread of literacy among the village people, the diffusion of the idea of one people and one nationality and gradual fusion of small subcastes into larger-similar units. We in India have no doubt reached a critical stage in our history when old ideals, institutions and habits are being shattered by the impact of new ideas and by the onrush of world forces. We have to decide whether we shall make or be able to make a clean sweep of all old ideals and institutions as so much debris and rubbish or whether while keeping the old ideals and some of the old institutions as foundations we shall build up a new social order and create and foster new habits of thought and action. It is beyond the scope of the present work to write more on this point.

v2.c19.5

⁵¹ E. g. Sherring in his ':Hindu Tribes and castes' vol. III p. 274 says 'It has been said with some truth that caste promotes cleanliness and order and is in a certain sense a bond of union among all classes of the Hindu community. Yet surely these ends might have been attained in a simpler manner and by a less antagonistic process. *The invention of a project so wonderfully elaborate and intricate—a* project of bringing into absolute subjection two hundred millions of the human species by robbing them of their independence, ...... the invention of a project like this, so prodigious and far-reaching was not needed to accomplish such useful and beneficent ends. That another and very different object was in view from the very first is abundantly manifest. This object was neither more nor less than to exalt the Brahman, to feed his pride and to minister to his self-will.' Equally sweeping condemnation can be and has been indulged in as regards feudalism and modern capitalism. Fick (p. 331) entirely scouts the idea that the theory of castes was invented by the priests. There are several fallacies lurking in the above quoted passage of Sherring. In the first place, there is nothing to show that the caste system was invented by any body of persons who could impose their will on a continent. The system simply grew up in the lapse of ages. The population of Hindus when Sherring wrote may have been near two hundred millions, but it could not have been more than a small fraction of that colossal number during the thousands of years that the system has flourished. Besides writers like Sherring pass over the great achievements of Indians under the caste system in Literature, religion and philosophy, in handicrafts and in the fine arts and unduly exaggerate the defects of the system that have become glaring only in the machine-made civilization of the 19th and 20th centuries. These critics ignore the great adaptability of the system, whereby it preserved Indian society from social anarchy during ages of foreign invasions and internecine wars. While severely condemning the brāhmaṇas the critics altogether forget that the vast and varied Sanskrit Literature owes its production and preservation mostly to the sacrifice of the brāhmaṇas for ages. Under the caste (*Continued on next page*) (*Continued from last page*) system, no man was allowed to be useless to the commonwealth and his conduct was a question of honour with his group. When all work was turned out with the hands, the caste system tended to preserve and augment the skill of artisans. Moreover what social organization is to be substituted and how is not made clear by these critics. Most of these critics have the western social system based on wealth and the industrial revolution in view; but that system also is as evil as or perhaps worse than the modern caste system.

v2.c19.6

A sort of caste system based on birth and occupation did prevail in many countries in ancient times as in Persia, Rome and Japan. But in all these countries it hardly ever made any near approach in rigour and complexity to the caste system that we have in India and instead of ramifying into divisions and subdivisions, it dwindled and disappeared in the course of time. No unanimity seems possible as to the several causes and circumstances which led in India alone to the evolution of the stupendous structure of caste. Not only is it impossible to hold that the origin of the modern complexity of the caste system is to be traced back to one single cause, but it is difficult to accept that even all the origins that have been postulated by the several authors can adequately and satisfactorily explain the modern caste system.

v2.c19.7

In most of the works on the castes in India a few features are pointed out as the characteristics of the caste system and as common to all castes and sub-castes. They are: (1) heredity i. e. in theory a man is assigned to a particular caste by birth in that caste; (2) endogamy and exogamy i. e. restriction as to marrying in the same caste and not marrying certain relatives or other persons, though of the same caste; (3) restrictions as to food (i. e. what food and water may be taken or not taken and from whom); (4) occupation (i. e. members of most castes follow certain occupations and no others); (5) gradation of castes, some being at the top in the social scale and others being deemed to be so low that they are untouchable. Some authors⁵² like Senart add another characteristic, viz. the caste council with its chief having in meeting assembled among other matters the power to regulate the conduct of its members, to impose the penalties of fine or excommunication for lapses. It may be said at once that this last is a feature that is not found among most of the brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya castes even in modern times and is not dealt with by dharmaśāstra works. Endogamy is now the most prominent characteristic of caste and so is the theory that it is by birth. The other three are more or less fluctuating from province to province and age to age. In this work the first five characteristics of the caste system set out above will be subjected to a close critical examination on the basis of the Vedic and dharmaśāstra material. We must also remember that the attributes of caste have not been the same throughout the ages. There is great difference between the popular conceptions of modern caste and the conceptions about it embodied in the ancient and medieval dharmaśāstra works. In the twentieth century caste in India is a matter of marriage and to a much lesser extent of food and drink. As to avocations any one can at present follow any profession without fear of loss of caste excepting a few believed to be very impure and very degrading ones (like those of sweepers, butchers, tanners &c.). It is also not possible even now for any one to be generally accepted as a priest, unless he is or claims to be a brāhmaṇa. The old barriers that separated one caste or subcaste from another have been greatly shaken by the influx of modern ideas and the exigencies of the times and one may hope that in a few decades more caste will remain as a purely social institution regulating marriages and to a lesser extent commensality (and not a religious one). Western scholars, in spite of their most commendable patience and industry, often present, through ignorance or lack of first-hand knowledge, the number of castes as larger than what it actually is. For example, Sherring (vol. II. Introduction pp. XXII-XLVI) gives an alphabetical list of brahmanical tribes and remarks (XLVII) 'Hundreds of these tribes, if not at enmity with one another, cherish mutual distrust and antipathy to such a degree that they are socially separated from one another as far as it is possible for them to be-as much as brāhmaṇas are from the lowest outcastes-neither eating nor drinking together nor intermarrying'. The list he gives is most misleading. To take only a few examples, he enumerates Athavle, Achwal, Abhyankara, Apte, Agashe, Bhanu, Bivalkar, Badye, Bhide, Bhagvat, Bhuskute, Bhat, Bodas as separate tribes; but it is well-known to people in Western India that these are the surnames (not subcastes) of the Koṅkaṇastha or Citpāvana brāhmaṇas, who not only interdine, but also inter-marry among themselves, provided there is no bar on the ground of sameness of *gotra* and *pravara*.

v2.c19.8

⁵² Vide Senart's 'caste in India' tr. by Ross pp. 66-73 (1930). Fick pp. 36-37 holds that there were no caste councils and no caste chiefs

v2.c19.9.1

The word *varṇa* means 'colour' or 'light' in most passages of the Ṛgveda (e. g. I. 73.7, II. 3.5, IX. 97.15, IX. 104.4, IX. 105.4, X. 124.7). But in some verses of the Ṛgveda⁵³ the word *varṇa* is associated with groups of people having a skin of a dark or fair colour. For example, we read in Ṛg. II. 12.4 '(Indra) who placed low the *dāsa* colour in a cave (or darkness)'; in Ṛg. I. 179.6 'the fierce sage (Agastya) cherished both *varṇas*'; in Ṛg. IX. 71.2 'like one (a fighter) who strikes the people he (Soma) who is powerful goes giving out frequent roars; he exposes the Asura colour'; in Ṛg. I. 130.8 'Indra helped in battles the Ārya sacrificer...... Indra punished for the sake of Manu (the *dāsas*) who do not observe the ordinances and subdued (or killed) the dark skin'; 'Indra having killed the dasyus protected the ārya varṇa' (Ṛg. III. 34.9); 'You (Indra) subdued for Ṛjiśvan, the son of Vidathin, Pipru and powerful Mṛgaya; you mowed down fifty thousand dark (men), you shattered cities as old age does shatter good looks' Ṛg. IV. 16.13; 'Somas, which strike away the dark skin' Ṛg. IX. 41.1. In Ṛg. I. 158.5 a certain *dāsa* is called Traitana which name has a Persian ring about it; In Ṛg. I. 104.2 *varṇa* seems to be placed in opposition to *dāsa*. These passages make it clear that the Āryas and dāsas were two opposing camps and both were designated 'varṇas' on account of the colour of their skins. The Tai. Br. I. 2.

v2.c19.9.2

6 (with reference to the Mahāvrata in which there was a mock fight between a brāhmaṇa and a śūdra) says 'that the brāhmaṇa is the divine varṇa, and śūdra is the asurya varṇa'.⁵⁴ If we can interpret the Ṛgveda verse by the help of the Tai. Br. then in Ṛg. IX. 71.2, the words 'asuryam varṇam' mean 'śūdra tribe'. There is no doubt that the word *asura* when applied to gods like Varuṇa has another meaning also in the Ṛg. In numerous places in the Ṛgveda the antagonism between the *āryas* and *dāsas* or *dasyus* is emphasized and prayers are offered to Indra and other gods for having subdued or for subduing the dāsa in favour of the Ārya. Ṛg. I. 51.8; I. 103.3; I. 117.21; II. 11.2, 4, 18, 19; III. 29.9; V. 70.3; VII. 5.6; IX. 88.4; VI. 18.3; VI. 25.2. In Ṛg. I. 51.8 Indra is requested to mark who are āryas and who are dasyus. This does not mean that there was difference between the two in bodily appearance only; on the contrary the antithesis between the ārya who is referred to as 'barhiṣmat' and the dasyu who is styled 'avrata' clearly shows that the emphasis was rather on the difference of their cults. That *dasyu* and *dāsa* are identical in meaning follows from the same epithets being applied to both and from the fact that dasyu and dāsa occur in the same verses as applying to the same enemy.⁵⁵ In Ṛg. X. 22.8 dasyu and dāsa are used in the same verse as applicable to the same enemy. In Ṛg. X. 99.6 and 8 Indra is represented as killing both dāsa and dasyu respectively.

v2.c19.9.3

The dasyus are described as '*avrata*' (not obeying the ordinances of the gods) in Ṛg. I. 51.8, I. 175.3, VI. 14.3, '*akratu*' (who perform no sacrifice) in VII. 6.3,⁵⁶ '*mṛdhravācaḥ*' (whose speech is indistinct or soft) in VII. 6.3 and V. 29.10, '*anāsaḥ*' (snub-nosed or dumb) in Ṛg. V. 29.10. It appears that dāsa and dasyu are synonyms and were sometimes styled asuras. For example, Śambara is called dasyu and dāsa in Ṛgveda VI. 31.4 and dāsa in Ṛg. VI. 26.5 and is also associated with asuras like Pipru in VI. 18.8; Pipru is spoken of as a dāsa in Ṛg. VIII. 32.2 and as an asura in X. 138.3. Varcin is styled dāsa in Ṛg. IV. 30.15 and VI. 47.21 and asura in VII. 99.5. In Tai. S.⁵⁷ (IV. 3.11.3) also it seems that they are held to be identical. The enmity between dāsa and ārya is breathed in such verses as the following: Ṛg. II. 11.4 'vanquish the tribe of dāsas by the sun (i. e. by the help of a brilliant weapon); Ṛg. I. 174.7 'You made the earth a pillow for the dāsa (i. e. you laid him low on the ground); Ṛg. III. 12.6 'Oh! Indra and Agni, by one effort together you shook ninety cities that had dāsas as overlords'. It is not possible to say that dāsas or dasyus were some Aryan tribes that had fallen from the worship or culture of the Aryan singers of Vedic hymns. In many places the sage refers to the conquest for him by Indra and other gods of dāsas as well as Aryan foes. For example, 'Protectors of the good! you (two) killed Aryan foes and dāsa foes' Ṛg. VI. 60·6;

v2.c19.9.4

'Oh Indra and Varuṇa! you killed dāsa foes and also Ārya foes and helped Sudās with your protection' Ṛg. VII. 83.1. Vide also Ṛg. VI. 22·10, X. 69·6, X. 83·1, X. 102·3. This shows that though the āryans had become divided and fought among themselves, they kept āryas and dāsas quite distinct. The foregoing shows that in the times of the Ṛgveda there were two antagonistic camps, of the āryas and dāsas or dasyus, they differed in the colour of their skins and also in worship, speech and bodily appearance. Therefore, in the earliest period we find the word varṇa associated only with dāsa and with ārya. Though the words brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya occur frequently in the Ṛgveda, the word varṇa is not used in connection with them. Even in the Puruṣasūkta (Ṛgveda X. 90) where the words brāhmaṇa, rājanya, vaiśya and śūdra occur the word varṇa is not used. Hence, one may reasonably say that the only water-tight groups that are positively or expressly vouchsafed by the Ṛgveda are ārya and dāsa or dasyu. It is often argued that as the word brāhmaṇa denotes a caste in later literature, in the Ṛgveda also it must be presumed to have the same meaning. But this begs the whole question. No one denies that brāhmaṇa denotes a caste in later literature. But whether it has the same sense in the Ṛgveda must be determined on the materials furnished by the Ṛgveda itself. Some rely on the word 'brahmaputra' in Ṛg. II. 43. 2 as showing that a brāhmaṇa became so only by birth in the Ṛgveda.

v2.c19.9.5

But the verse begins by saying that 'you sing a Sāma like the Udgātṛ priest' and so 'brahmaputra' must mean a ṛtvij whose duty it was to recite śastras (the Brāhmaṇācchaṁsin as Sāyaṇa explains). It is generally conceded that the Puruṣasūkta is a much later hymn than most of the hymns of the Ṛgveda. In the whole of the Ṛgveda the words vaiśya and śūdra do not occur except in the Puruṣasūkta, though both of them occur in the Atharvaveda (V. 17·9 for vaiśya and IV. 20. 4 and 8 for śūdra and ārya) and very frequently in the Tai. S. Besides we cannot forget that the final redaction of the Ṛgveda must be held to have been separated from the composition of the individual hymns by several hundred years (if not more) and that even if it be conceded that at the time when the Puruṣasūkta was composed, the four varṇas had been constituted and had become castes, yet the same cannot be affirmed for the time of the original composition of the other hymns. The word brāhmaṇa occurs several times in the Ṛgveda: ⁵⁸ 'Oh brāhmaṇas, Oh pitṛs fond of soma! May the sinless Dyāvāpṛthivī (Heaven and Earth) tend to our welfare'; 'Like brāhmaṇas in the Atirātra where soma is to be drunk, utterring (words) round a lake full of water you have, Oh frogs, gathered together on that day of the year on which the rains begin' (Ṛg. VII. 103. 7); ⁵⁹ 'The brāhmaṇas, who drink soma, reciting prayers of the yearly sacrifice, have sent forth their speech' (Ṛg. VII. 103. 8).

v2.c19.9.6

In this verse brāhmaṇas are expressly said to be getting 'brahma' ready. 'May Agni who devours everything make that (dead body) free from disease and (may) soma also (do the same) who entered into the brāhmaṇas' (Ṛg. X. 16. 6). 'When the brāhmaṇas worship together as friends in hymns (lit. speed of the mind) that are fabricated from their hearts' (Ṛg. X. 71. 8). In Ṛg. VI. 75. 10 brāhmaṇas are invoked for welfare along with pitṛs. This shows that the brāhmaṇas were highly venerated. The other verses establish that they were the reciters of hymns (brahma) and drank soma. In Ṛg. VIII. 35. 16-18 we read 'You (Aśvins) urge on (or inspire) brahma, you urge on our thoughts (or actions), you kill the evil spirits and subdue diseases; (17) you urge kṣatra (valour) and also men, you kill evil spirits (same as 16); (18) you urge on the cows and also the Viś (the rest is same as 16).' Here it seems that the groups of people (viz. those who think and make songs, those who show valour and lead men, and those common people who tend cattle) are clearly meant. These verses may be conceded as pointing to the existence of three groups (brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and viśaḥ) but there is nothing in them to show that these three had crystallised into somewhat like the castes of later times. In Ṛg. VII. 33. 11 Vasiṣṭha is addressed as brahman, but that does not mean that he was a brāhmaṇa (by birth), as he is said to have been born of Urvaśī from Mitra and Varuṇa. Similarly, in Ṛg. IX. 96.

v2.c19.9.7

6 (Brahmā devānāṃ) the word brahmā⁶⁰ does not certainly mean 'brāhmaṇa by birth', nor does 'viprāṇām' mean 'brāhmaṇas by birth'. In that verse one who is super-eminent among a group is specified, just as the buffalo among animals, the hawk among carnivorous birds &c. In Ṛg. VIII. 33. 19 'look down and not up; bring your feet close together; may thy kaśaplakas (legs?) be not seen, for though a brahmā, thou wert born a woman,' it is impossible to hold that the last words mean 'thou wert a brāhmaṇa woman'. If it is only intended to refer to the fact that she is a brāhmaṇa woman, there is no reason why the Perfect tense (babhūvitha) is used and not the present. Here 'brahmā' most probably means 'a priest of that name', as that is the meaning in Ṛg. II. 1. 2 (brahmā cāsi gṛhapatiś-ca no dame). The word 'brahmajāyā' in Ṛg. X. 109. 2, 3, 6 and 7 does not mean the wife of a brāhmaṇa by birth but rather 'wife of Bṛhaspati'. The whole hymn is obscure and more or less enigmatic or allegorical. In the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa⁶¹ 35. 2-4 it is said that soma is the food of brāhmaṇas and that a kṣatriya was to press the tendrils of the Nyagrodha tree and the fruits of Udumbara, Aśvattha and Plakṣa and drink the juice so pressed instead of soma. It appears, therefore, that the brāhmaṇas were a distinct group even in the earliest period of the Ṛgveda. Whether they were hereditary is certainly not clear;

v2.c19.9.8

nor is there anything to show that there were restrictions as regards partaking of food from persons other than brāhmaṇas or as to marriage. That brāhmaṇas in the Ṛgveda were a class by themselves may be conceded, but whether they had become a caste by birth is a matter of opinion dependent on the connotation given to the word caste. Dr. Ghurye ('Caste and race in India' p. 42) thinks, probably following the Vedic Index (vol. I on Kṣatriya), that the reference in Ṛg. X. 71. 9 to a false claim for being regarded as a brāhmaṇa points to the conclusion that brāhmaṇas had become a caste. The verse literally translated means 'these (persons) who do not move below nor beyond, who are neither brāhmaṇas, nor engaged in pressing soma—they being ignorant and having resorted to speech in sinful (or coarse) language take to ploughshares and engage in (agricultural) operations’. It is difficult to see how there is here any false claim to be regarded as a brāhmaṇa. This verse means apparently that those who are not composers of prayers or drinkers of soma (because they are ignorant) are men of low speech and have to turn to agriculture. Even in the days of the dharma-sūtras restrictions as to food and marriage for brāhmaṇas were not at all as rigid as they became in medieval and modern times; but even when these restrictions were not rigid it was clearly laid down that a brāhmaṇa is so by birth alone. The word ‘brahma’ generally means in the Ṛgveda ‘prayer’ or ‘hymn’. *Vide*⁶² Ṛg IV.

v2.c19.9.9

6.11, VI. 52.2, X. 105.8, X. 141.5 (‘Oh Agni, make our prayer and sacrifice prosper by your flames’). Ṛg. III. 53.12 is ‘this brahma (prayer or spiritual power) of Viśvāmitra protects the Bhārata people’. In the Atharvaveda II. 15.4 (as brahma and kṣatra entertain no fear, nor are they harmed) brahma seems to mean ‘the class of brāhmaṇas’. The transition of meaning from ‘brahma’ (prayer) to ‘brahma’ meaning the class of those who composed or recited prayers is natural and easy. In the Ṛgveda I. 157.2 both brahma and kṣatra occur⁶³ in the same verse where they probably mean ‘prayer’ and ‘valour’ respectively. In the Atharvaveda III. 19.1 both words occur and probably mean the same thing as in Ṛg. I. 157.2. In some Vedic works *brahma* and *kṣatra* stand collectively for brāhmaṇas⁶⁴ and kṣatriyas (e. g. Tai. Br. II. 7.18, Bṛ. Up. I. 4.11, Kaṭhopaniṣad I. 2. 24). The word kṣatriya is very frequently applied as an epithet to several gods; e. g. Ṛg. VII. 64. 2 and VIII. 25. 8 (in both to Mitra and Varuṇa), Ṛg. VIII. 67. 1 (to Ādityas), Ṛg. X. 66.8 (to gods in general). In some verses kṣatriya means ‘a king or a nobleman’; e. g. Ṛg. IV. 42.1 ‘the kingdom on both sides (heaven and earth) belongs to me, who am a kṣatriya and who holds sway over all living persons, so that all the immortals (gods) are ours (on my side)’;⁶⁵ Ṛg. X. 109.3 ( = Atharva V. 17.3 ) 'the domain of the kṣatriya has been protected (from the sight of enemies)'.

v2.c19.9.10

(The word 'rājanya occurs in the Ṛgveda only in the Puruṣasūkta. It occurs in the sense of kṣatriya in the Atharvaveda V. 17.9. The same remark applies to the word kṣatriya as to brāhmaṇa. It is difficult to say whether kṣatriyas were so by birth in the times of the hymns of the Ṛg. or were only a class more or less fluid. We find that the Ṛg. speaks of Devāpi as the *purohita* of Śantanu who became a king. The story⁶⁶ is that both were sons of Ṛṣṭiṣeṇa and that Śantanu, though a younger brother, became king as Devāpi was not willing to be a king. The result was a famine due to Śantanu's transgression and so Devāpi performed a sacrifice to induce rainfall. This shows that out of two brothers one became a king and the other a purohita. So kings and purohitas did not depend on birth. In Ṛg. IX. 112. 3 a poet exclaims 'I am a reciter of hymns my father is a physician and my mother grinds (corn) with stones. We desire to obtain wealth in various actions.'⁶⁷ In Ṛg. III. 44.5 the poet wistfully asks Indra 'O, Indra, fond of soma, would you make me the protector of people, or would you make me a king, would you make me a sage, that has drunk of soma, would you impart to me endless wealth?' This shows that the same man could be a ṛṣi or a noble or a king. Dr. Ghurye (in 'Caste and race in India' p. 44) thinks that the kṣatriyas had become a compact body and he particularly relies on Ṛg. VII. 104. 13 ( = Atharvaveda VIII. 4. 13) which is cited in the Vedic Index (vol. 1, p.

v2.c19.9.11

207) for the same purpose. That verse literally means 'Soma does not urge on the crooked one, nor the kṣatriya who bears false. He strikes the rakṣas, and strikes him who speaks falsely; both lie in the bonds of Indra'. The words 'kṣatriyaṃ mithuyā dhārayantam' are explained by Sāyaṇa as 'Kṣatriya who bears false words'. The 2nd half is only an expansion of the first half and so 'vṛjina' corresponds to 'rakṣas' and 'asad vadantam' is only a paraphrase of 'mithuyā dhārayantam'. They may mean this that one who is a kṣatriya, but has no strength as a kṣatriya should have, is at the mercy of Indra. Unless we project our notions of the later state of society and the caste system when considering this verse, it is hardly possible to hold that this verse indicates that it refers to persons making a false claim for entrance into a compact body of kṣatriyas by birth. Dr. Ghurye also says (p. 44) 'The 2nd order in society, the kṣatriya, is known in the earlier portions of the Ṛgveda as rājanya.' I have not been able to find the word rājanya in the Ṛgveda any where except in the Puruṣasūkta. In the Aitareya brāhmaṇa (chap. 34. 2) the word 'rājanya' stands for a member of the 2nd class in society, while kṣatriya means a king of whom land (for sacrifice to gods) is asked for by brāhmaṇa, rājanya or vaiśya.

v2.c19.10

⁵³ यो दासं वर्णमधरं गुहा कः। ऋ. II. 12.4; उभौ वर्णावुपिऋषः पुपोष। ऋ. I. 179.6. Here Sāyaṇa interprets 'varṇau' as 'kāma' and 'tapas,' but this is far-fetched and it appears better to take the passage as meaning that Agastya supported both Āryas and dāsas. The words cannot reasonably be taken to refer to Brāhmaṇa and Kṣatriya since there was no difference of colour between the two and since varṇas have been four and not two.

v2.c19.11

⁵⁴ ब्राह्मणश्च शूद्रश्च चर्मकर्ते व्यायच्छेते। दैव्यो वर्णो ब्राह्मणः असुर्यः शूद्रः। तै. ब्रा. I. 2. 6.

v2.c19.12

⁵⁵ अकर्मा दस्युरभि नो अमन्तुरन्यव्रतो अमानुषः । त्वं तस्यामित्रहन् वधर्दासस्य दम्भय ॥ ऋ. X. 22.8.

v2.c19.13

⁵⁶ न्यक्रतून् ग्रथिनो मृध्रवाचः पणींरश्रद्धाँ अवृधाँ अयज्ञान् । प्रप्र तान्दस्यूँरग्निर्र्विवाप पूर्वश्चकारापरां अयज्यून् ॥ ऋ. VII. 6.3. This verse applies seven epithets to dasyus. They are called paṇis (greedy traders), अश्रद्ध (without faith). In Nirukta VI. 31 Yāska paraphrases मृध्रवाचः as मृदुवाचः. In Ṛg. V. 34. 6-7 the dāsa is called paṇi.

v2.c19.14

⁵⁷ तेन दस्यून व्यसहन्त देवा हन्तासुराणामभवच्छचीभिः। तै. सं. IV. 3.11.3.

v2.c19.15

⁵⁸ ब्राह्मणासः पितरः सोम्यासः शिवे नो द्यावापृथिवी अनेहसा। ऋ. VI. 75.10.

v2.c19.16

⁵⁹ ब्राह्मणासो अतिरात्रे न सोमे सरो न पूर्णमभितो वदन्तः। संवत्सरस्य तदहः परि ष्ठ यन्मण्डूकाः प्रावृषीणां बभूव ॥ ऋ. 7. 103. 7; ब्राह्मणासः सोमिनो वाचमकत ब्रह्म कृण्वन्तः परिवत्सरीणम् । ऋ 7. 103. 8: अग्रिष्ट्वा विश्वादगदं कृणोतु सोमश्च यो ब्राह्मणाँ आविवेश । ऋ. 10 16. 6; हृदा तष्टेषु मनसो जवेषु यद्ब्राह्मणाः संयजन्ते सखायः। ऋ. X. 71. 8 ; चत्वारि वाक्परिमिता पदानि तानि विदुर्ब्राह्मणा ये मनीषिणः ॥ ऋ. I. 164. 45.

v2.c19.17

⁶⁰ ब्रह्मा देवानां पदवीः कवीनामृषिर्विप्राणां महिषो मृगाणाम् । श्येनो गृध्राणां स्वधितिर्वनानां सोमः पवित्रमत्येति रेभन् । ऋ. IX. 96.6; अधः पश्यस्व मोपरि संतरोँ पादुकौ हर । मा ते कशप्लको दृशन् स्त्री हि ब्रह्मा बभूविथ ॥ ऋ. VIII. 33. 19.

v2.c19.18

⁶¹ व्युद्ममेवाद्यापि क्षत्रं सोमपीथेन । ...स यदि सोमं ब्राह्मणानां भक्षः । अथास्यैष स्वो भक्षो न्यग्रोधस्यावरोधाश्च फलानि चौदुम्बराणि चाश्वत्थानि प्लाक्षाण्याभिषुणुयात् तानि भक्षयेत्सोऽस्य स्वो भक्षः । ऐ. ब्रा. 35. 2-4; vide पूर्वमीमांसासूत्र III. 5. 22, III. 5. 47-51, III. 6. 36 and Śabara's bhāṣya thereon for this subject.

v2.c19.19

⁶² त्वं नो अग्ने अग्निभिर्ब्रह्म यज्ञं च वर्धय । ऋ. X. 141.5; विश्वामित्रस्य रक्षति ब्रह्मेदं भारतं जनम् । ऋ. III. 53. 12.

v2.c19.20

⁶³ यद्युञ्जाथे वृषणमश्विना रथं घृतेन नो मधुना क्षत्रमुक्षतम् । अस्माकं ब्रह्म पृतनासु जिन्वतं वयं धना शूरसाता भजेमहि ॥ ऋ. I. 157.2.

v2.c19.21

⁶⁴ ब्रह्म वै ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रं राजन्यः । तै. ब्रा. III. 9. 14.

v2.c19.22

⁶⁵ मम द्विता राष्ट्रं क्षत्रियस्य विश्वायोर्विश्वे अमृता यथा नः । ऋ. IV. 42.1. Acc. to the Anukramaṇī this is a hymn of king Trasadasyu son of Purukutsa.

v2.c19.23

⁶⁶ Vide Nirukta II. 10 for the story of Devāpi and Śantanu who were Kauravya brothers according to it.

v2.c19.24

⁶⁷ कारुरहं ततो भिषगुपलप्रक्षिणी नना । नानाधियो वसूयवोऽनु गा इव तस्थिम। ऋ. IX. 112.3. Kāru means here 'composer of hymns'; Viśvāmitra is addressed as kāru by the rivers in Ṛg. III. 33. 10 'आ ते कारो शृणवामा वचांसि'. Vide निरुक्त VI. 6 for कारुरहं.

v2.c19.25

Though the word vaiśya occurs in the Ṛgveda only in the Puruṣasūkta, the word 'viś' is very frequently employed in it. It generally means 'people or group of people'. In a large number of cases we have the words *mānuṣīr-viśaḥ* or *mānuṣīṣu vikṣu* or *mānuṣīnām viśām*, e. g. Ṛg. III. 5. 3, III. 6. 3, III. 11. 5 (invincible Agni goes in front of human groups), IV. 6. 7 and 8, IV. 9. 2, V. 1. 9, V. 8. 3, VI. 48. 8, VI. 47. 16 (*viśo mānuṣyān*), X. 1. 4, X. 69. 9. In some places we have 'dāsīr viśaḥ' (the dāsa hordes) e. g. IV. 28·4, VI. 25·2. In⁶⁸ Ṛg. III. 34·2 we have 'Oh Indra, you are the leader of human hordes as well as of divine hordes' (where we have daivīnām viśām). Ṛg.⁶⁹ VIII. 63·7 (when loud invocations were sent towards Indra by the people consisting of five groups) shows that 'viś' means all the Aryan people. In Ṛg. V. 32. 11 Indra is styled 'pāñcajanya' (favourable to the five people) and in IX. 66. 20 Agni has the appellation 'pāñcajanyaḥ purohitaḥ' (the *purohita* of the five peoples). Sometimes *jana* and *viś* seem to be contradistinguished as in Ṛg. II. 26. 3 (*sa ij-janena sa viśā sa janmanā sa putrair-vājam bharate dhanā nṛbhiḥ*). But the very fact that *viś* is qualified also as pāñcajanya shows that there was hardly any distinction between jana and viś. In the Ṛgveda frequent reference is made to five people (pañca janāḥ); vide Ṛg. III. 37. 9, III. 59. 7, VI. 11. 4, VIII. 32. 22, X. 65. 23, X. 45. 6. In the same way the words kṛṣṭi (II. 2. 10, IV. 38. 10), kṣiti (V. 35. 2, VI. 48. 7, VII. 75. 4), carṣaṇi (V. 86. 2, VII. 15. 2) are employed along with pañca. We have also 'pāñcajanyāsu kṛṣṭiṣu' in Ṛg. III. 53·16. So it is clear that *viś* cannot in almost all hymns of the Ṛg. mean 'vaiśya' but means the 'people' or 'āryan people' when no epithet like 'dāsīḥ' or 'daivīḥ' is prefixed.⁷⁰ The Ait. Br. (I. 26) says that 'viśaḥ' means 'rāṣṭrāṇi' (countries) when explaining Ṛg. IV. 50·8 (tasmai viśaḥ svayam-evānamante).

v2.c19.26

⁶⁸ इन्द्र क्षितीनामसि मानुषीणां विशां दैवीनामुत पूर्वयावा । ऋ. III. 34.2.

v2.c19.27

⁶⁹ यत्पाञ्चजन्यया विशेन्द्र घोषा असृक्षत । ऋ. VIII. 63.7. Śaṁkara in his bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra I. 4. 12 says that the word pañcajana in Ṛg. VIII. 63 7 means 'prajā' (people) and also notes that according to some 'pañca janāḥ' are devas, pitṛs, asuras, gandharvas and rakṣases; while according to others they are the four varṇas and niṣādas as the fifth. The Ait. Br. (13. 7) gives an explanation of pañca janāḥ similar to the first 'पाञ्चजन्यं वा एतदुक्थं यद्वैश्वदेवं सर्वेषां वा एतत्पञ्चजनानामुक्थं देवमनुष्याणां गन्धर्वाप्सरसां सर्पाणां च पितॄणां च'. The Nirukta (III. 8) in explaining Ṛg. X. 53. 4 remarks about pañca janāḥ. 'गन्धर्वाः पितरो देवा असुरा रक्षांसीत्येके । चत्वारो वर्णा निषादः पञ्चम इत्यौपमन्यवः । '

v2.c19.28

⁷⁰ Vide Ṛg. I. 25.1, I. 114 3, VI. 15·1, X. 173·4 for '*viś*' by itself.

v2.c19.29

The word 'dāsa' in later literature means 'a serf or a slave.' It follows that the dāsa tribes that we see opposed to the Āryas in the Ṛgveda were gradually vanquished and were then made to serve the Āryas. In the Manusmṛti (VIII. 413) the śūdra is said to have been created by God for service (dāsya) of the brāhmaṇa.⁷¹ We find in the Tai. S., the Tai. Br. and other Brāhmaṇa works that the śūdra occupies the same position that he does in the smṛtis. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that the *dāsas* or *dasyus* conquered by the Āryas were gradually transformed into the śūdras. From being enemies they were brought into friendly relations and given a very subordinate position. Traces are visible even in the Ṛgveda that friendly relations had begun to be established between certain dāsas and the priests. For example in Ṛg. VIII. 46. 32 we read 'the singer took a hundred (cows or other gifts) from the dāsa Balbūtha and from Tarukṣa.' In the Puruṣasūkta (X. 90. 12) the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra are said to have sprung from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of the supreme Puruṣa. In the very next verse the sun and the moon are said to have been born from the eye and mind of the Puruṣa. This shows that the composer of the hymn regarded the division of society into four classes to be very ancient and to be as natural and God-ordained as the sun and the moon.

v2.c19.30

⁷¹ शूद्रं तु कारयेद् दास्यं क्रीतमक्रीतमेव वा। दास्यायैव हि सृष्टोऽसौ ब्राह्मणस्य स्वयंभुवा॥ मनु VIII. 413

v2.c19.31

We shall now see what position was assigned to the śūdra in the Vedic Saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇas. In the Ṛgveda the Ārya is contradistinguished from the men 'of dark skin.' In the dharmasūtras we find the śūdras spoken of as 'dark varṇa.'

v2.c19.32.1

Vide Ap. Dh. S. I. 9. 27. 11 which is the same as Baud. Dh. S. II. 1. 59.⁷² 'The śūdra among men and the horse among beasts. Therefore those two, the horse and the śūdra, are the conveyances of beings; therefore the śūdra is not fit (or ordained) for sacrifice' (Tai. S. VII. 1. 1. 6).⁷³ This shows that the śūdra could not perform the Vedic sacrifices and that he was employed for carrying persons in a palanquin or otherwise. In Tai. S. V. 7. 6. 3-4 we have 'put light (glory) in our brāhmaṇas, put it in our chiefs (or kings), (put) light in vaiśyas and śūdras, put light in me by your light.'⁷⁴ This is a sure indication that the śūdra who took the place of the dāsa is here placed on the same level with the other three classes in the matter of the receipt of light from God and that far from being looked upon as an enemy, he had come to be looked upon as a member of the society (though the lowest in the scale). 'The śūdra is a moving burial ground; therefore one should not study the Veda in the vicinity of a śūdra.'⁷⁵ 'He created the brāhmaṇa with Gāyatrī, the rājanya with Triṣṭubh and the vaiśya with Jagatī; but he did not create the śūdra with any metre.⁷⁶ The Tāṇḍyamahābrāhmaṇa says⁷⁷ 'Therefore a śūdra, though he may have many beasts, is not entitled to perform sacrifice, he is godless as no deity was created after him (as in the case of the other varṇas);

v2.c19.32.2

therefore he does not go beyond washing the feet (of the three other varṇas), since he was created from the feet' (this last being an allusion to the Puruṣasūkta X. 90. 12 *padbhyāṁ śūdro ajāyata*). This shows that the śūdra, however rich in cattle he might be, had to perform the menial duty of washing the feet of *dvijas*. The Śatapatha Br. says that 'the śūdra is untruth' (S. B. E. vol. 44. p. 446), that 'the śūdra is toil' (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 410), and that a dīkṣita (one who was initiated for a Vedic sacrifice) was not to speak with a śūdra (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 4). The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa remarks that 'the śūdra⁷⁸ is at the beck and call of others (the three varṇas), he can be made to rise at will, he can be beaten at will.' When the father of Śunaḥśepa⁷⁹ (who had sold Śunaḥśepa for 100 coins and had shown himself ready to kill him as a paśu for another hundred coins) urged his son to come back to him after the boy had been taken into favour by Varuṇa and Viśvāmitra, he contemptuously discards his father's proposal with the words 'one who commits an evil deed once may commit another sinful deed thereafter; you did not leave aside the śūdra's line of conduct;

v2.c19.32.3

you did what leaves no door for reconciliation.' These passages show that the śūdra, though he had ceased to be an enemy of the ārya and had been allowed to be within the pale of society, was looked down upon, was assigned a very low position, had to perform work of toil as a menial and was not allowed to perform Vedic sacrifices. A clear line of demarcation was kept between the Ārya and the Śūdra in the times of the Brāhmaṇa works and even in the dharmasūtras. The Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa⁸⁰ speaks of a mock fight 'the śūdra and ārya fight on a hide, out of the two they so arrange that the ārya colour becomes the victor'. The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 1.3.40-41 says⁸¹ that a brāhmacārin, if he cannot himself eat all the food he has brought by begging, may keep it near an ārya (for his use) or he may give it to a śūdra who is a dāsa (of his teacher)'. The same Dharmasūtra⁸² (II. 2.3. 1 and 4) says 'Āryas who are pure (by bath) should prepare the food for Vaiśvadeva;......or śūdras supervised by āryas should prepare it'. Similarly Gautama X. 69 uses the word 'anārya for śūdra and Gautama 12.3 prescribes heavy punishment for a śūdra having sexual intercourse with an ārya woman. Jaimini in his Pūrvamīmāṁsā sūtra (VI. 1.25–38) establishes after elaborate discussion that the śūdra has no *adhikāra* for the performance of Agnihotra and Vedic sacrifices.

v2.c19.32.4

It is, however, somewhat gratifying to find that at least one ācārya, Bādari, espoused the cause of the śūdra and propounded the view that all (including śūdras) were entitled to perform Vedic sacrifices (VI. 1.27). In the Vedānta-sūtras also (I. 3.34–38) it is established that the śūdra has no *adhikāra* for brahmavidyā based on Veda study, though some śūdras like Vidura might have been endowed with the knowledge of *brahma* owing to saṁskāras of former births. In the smṛti literature, however, a few passages are found allowing marriages of āryas with śūdra women (which will be discussed later on). Similarly sexual relations (illicit) between a śūdra woman and a man of higher varṇa are alluded to even in the Saṁhitās e. g. Tai. S.⁸³ VII. 4.19.3 ‘when a śūdra woman has an *ārya* as her paramour she does not seek wealth for the prosperity (of her relations)’. In Ait. Br. (8. 1) there is the story of Kavaṣa Ailūṣa, who was driven out from the sacrifice on the Sarasvatī with the words ‘Oh, son of a female slave, you are a rogue and not a brāhmaṇa; how did you take the dīkṣā (initiation) as one of us’ and they carried him off to a sandy desert with the idea that he might die of thirst there. He when tormented by thirst ‘saw’ the hymn Ṛg. X. 30 and Sarasvatī came rushing to him.⁸⁴ Further discussion about the śūdra and his disabilities will follow in another section later.

v2.c19.33

⁷² यदेकरात्रेण करोति पापं कृष्णं वर्णं ब्राह्मणः सेवमानः। चतुर्थकाल उदकाभ्यवायी त्रिभिर्वर्षैस्तदपहन्ति पापम्॥ आप. ध. सू. I. 9. 27. 11 = बौ. ध. सू. II. 1. 59 = शान्तिपर्व 165. 29.

v2.c19.34

⁷³ शूद्रो मनुष्याणामश्वः पशूनां तस्मात्तौ भूतसंक्रामिणावश्वश्च शूद्रश्च तस्माच्छूद्रो यज्ञेऽनवक्लृप्तः। तै. सं. VII. 1. 1. 6.

v2.c19.35

⁷⁴ रुचं नो धेहि ब्राह्मणेषु रुचं राजसु नस्कृधि। रुचं विश्येषु शूद्रेषु मयि धेहि रुचा रुचम्॥ तै. सं. V. 7. 6. 3-4.

v2.c19.36

⁷⁵ पद्यु वा एतच्छ्मशानं यच्छूद्रः। तस्माच्छूद्रसमीपे नाध्येयम्। This is quoted by Sabara on Jaimini VI. 1. 38 as a *śruti*. वसिष्ठ ध. सू. 18. 11-12 echoes these words 'एके वा एतच्छ्मशानं ये शूद्राः। तस्माच्छूद्रसमीपे नाध्येतव्यम्।.' पद्यु...च्छूद्रः is cited as Satapatha Śruti by the Śūdrakamalākara (p. 3).

v2.c19.37

⁷⁶ This is quoted by Vas. Dh. S. IV. 3. Vide Ait. Br. 5. 12 'गायत्रो वै ब्राह्मणः ...... त्रैष्टुभो वै राजन्यः ...... जागतो वै वैश्यः'.

v2.c19.38

⁷⁷ तस्माच्छूद्र उत बहुपशुरयज्ञियो विदेवो नहि तं काचन देवतामन्वसृज्यत तस्मात्पादावनेज्यं नातिवर्धते पत्तो हि सृष्टः। ताण्ड्य VI. 1. 11.

v2.c19.39

⁷⁸ (शूद्रः) अन्यस्य प्रेष्यः कामोत्थाप्यो यथाकामवध्यः। ऐ. ब्रा. 35.3

v2.c19.40

⁷⁹ यः सकृत्पापकं कुर्यात्कुर्यादेनंस्ततोऽपरम् । नापागाः शौद्रान्न्र्यायादसन्धेयं त्वया कृतम् ॥ ऐ. ब्रा. 33. 5. The legend of Śunaḥśepa is referred to even in Ṛg. I. 24.12-13 and V. 2.7 (where it is expressly said that Śunaḥśepa was released by Varuṇa from the sacrificial post to which he had been tied).

v2.c19.41

⁸⁰ शूद्रार्यौ चर्मणि व्यायच्छेते तयोरार्यवर्णमुज्जापयन्ति। ताण्ड्य V. 5. 14.

v2.c19.42

⁸¹ आर्याय वा पर्यवदध्यात् । अन्तर्धिन वा शूद्राय । आप. ध. सू. I. 1. 3. 40-41

v2.c19.43

⁸² आर्याः प्रयता वैश्वदेवेऽन्नसंस्कर्तारः स्युः । आर्याधिष्ठिता वा शूद्राः संस्कर्तारः स्युः आप. ध. सू. II. 2. 3. 1 and 4.

v2.c19.44

⁸³ शूद्रा यदार्यजारा न पोषाय धनायति। तै. सं. VII. 4. 19.3 and Vājasaneya Saṁhitā 23. 30. ‘Arya’ may mean an Ārya, or simply ‘master’ or ‘vaiśya’ (as in later literature). The words न...यति may mean ‘He (the father of the śūdra woman) does not desire wealth for his own prosperity’ (as he is pained by the event).

v2.c19.45

⁸⁴ A similar story is told in the Śāṅkhāyana Brāhmaṇa XII. 3. The words ‘dāsyāḥ putraḥ’ may be only terms of abuse or they may mean that, though he posed to be a brāhmaṇa, he was the son of a brāhmaṇa from a dāsī.

v2.c19.46

The position of the three varṇas *inter se* (called collectively ārya) now requires consideration. It is clear that the Saṁhitās other than the Ṛgveda and Brāhmaṇa works show that the three classes of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas had become differentiated and their privileges, duties and liabilities had become more or less fixed in those times.

v2.c19.47

In Ṛg. IV. 50.8 we read 'that king alone who places brahmā first (i. e. honours him) dwells happy in his house, for him the earth always remains prosperous and to him all the people (or kingdoms) bow down of their own accord'. 'Brāhmaṇas⁸⁵ are gods that are directly seen' (Tai. S. I. 7. 3. 1); 'there are two kinds of gods; for indeed the gods are gods and the brāhmaṇas who have studied and teach the sacred lore are the human gods' Śat. Br. (S. B. E. vol. 12 p. 309, vol. 26 p. 341). In the Atharvaveda V. 17. 19 there is an assertion of the pre-eminence of brāhmaṇas and the consequences of harming them or their cows. 'Therefore the brāhmaṇa is the foremost' (Tai. S. II. 6. 2. 5, V. 2. 7. 1). 'Therefore the brāhmaṇa shows his might by his mouth, since he was created from the mouth' (Tāṇḍya Br. XI. 1. 2).⁸⁶ In the Ait. Br. (33. 4) Varuṇa, when he was told that a brāhmaṇa boy would be offered in place of the son of the king Hariścandra, is made to say 'a brāhmaṇa is indeed preferable to a kṣatriya'. The mere fact of birth as brāhmaṇa's son is represented here as giving to the boy pre-eminence over a king's son. On the other hand the Śat. Br. says (V. 1. 1. 12) 'a brāhmaṇa⁸⁷ is not adequate to (competent to manage) a kingdom'. In the Tai. Br. it is said that playing on the vīṇā (in the Aśvamedha) is to be done by a brāhmaṇa and a rājanya (and not by two brāhmaṇas), since wealth does not find delight in the brāhmaṇa. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa⁸⁸ (XI. 5. 7. 1) lays emphasis on the four peculiar attributes of brāhmaṇas viz. brāhmaṇya (purity of parentage as a brāhmaṇa), pratirūpacaryā (befitting deportment or conduct), yaśas (glory) and lokapakti (the teaching or perfecting of people). 'When the people are being perfected or taught by him, people endow him with four privileges viz. arcā (honour), dāna (gifts), ajyeyatā (freedom from being harassed ) and avadhyatā (freedom from being beaten ). The Śatapatha (V. 4. 6. 9) expressly mentions that brāhmaṇa, rājanya, vaiśya and śūdra are the four varṇas. Teaching had become so much associated with the brāhmaṇas that when the brāhmaṇa Gārgya approached king Ajātaśatru for the knowledge of *brahma*, the latter replied "this is contrary to the natural order that a brāhmaṇa should approach a kṣatriya with the idea ' he (kṣatriya) will propound to me brahma'." In a separate section below all the privileges enjoyed by the brāhmaṇas will be set out at one place.⁸⁹

v2.c19.48

⁸⁵ एते वै देवाः प्रत्यक्षं यद् ब्राह्मणाः । तै. सं. I. 7. 3. 1; यावतीर्वै देवतास्ताः सर्वा वेदविदि ब्राह्मणे वसन्ति तस्माद् ब्राह्मणोभ्यो वेदविद्भ्यो दिवे दिवे नमस्कुर्यात् । नाश्लीलं कीर्तयेदेता एव देवताः प्रीणाति । तै. आ. II. 15 and 'ब्राह्मणो वा आर्षेयः सर्वा देवताः ।' शतपथ XII. 4. 4. 6; तस्माद्ब्राह्मणो मुखेन वीर्यं करोति मुखतो हि सृष्टः । ताण्ड्यमहा-ब्रा. VI. 1. 6. The same idea is expressed in the उत्तररामचरित V. 'वाचि वीर्यं द्विजानाम्.'

v2.c19.49

⁸⁶ ब्रह्म हि पूर्वं क्षत्रात् । ताण्ड्यमहा ब्रा. XI. 1. 2; भूयान्वै ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियादिति वरुण उवाच । ऐ. ब्रा. 33. 4.

v2.c19.50

⁸⁷ 'न वै ब्राह्मणो राज्यायालम्' शतपथ V. 1. 1.12; S. B. E. vol. 41 p. 4. न वै ब्राह्मणे श्री रमते इति ब्राह्मणोन्यो गायेद्राजन्योन्यः । तै. ब्रा. III. 9. 14.

First 65 of 440 passages. Read on

Linked texts (75)