History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c19.32
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c19.32
- Language
- English
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.