Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c20: Chapter III. The Duties, Disabilities and Privileges of the Varṇas

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c20

Language
English

Contents

Chapter III. The Duties, Disabilities and Privileges of the Varṇas

v2.c20.2

The duties and privileges of *varṇas* occupy a very prominent place in all works on Dharmaśāstra. The study (of the Vedas), offering sacrifices and giving gifts are said to be the duties absolutely enjoined on the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya and vaiśya,²¹⁸ while each of these three varṇas has certain peculiar privileges, which are its principal means of livelihood. Teaching Vedas, officiating at sacrifices and receiving gifts—these are the privileges of brāhmaṇas; the profession of arms and protection of the people are the peculiar privileges of kṣatriyas; agriculture, rearing cattle, trade and money-lending are the peculiar privileges of vaiśyas. The first three viz. study, sacrifices and liberality are said to be the dharmas of all *dvijas* and the other actions such as teaching the Veda are said to be the *vṛtti* or *jīvikā* (means of livelihood) of the *dvijas*. The consequence of this bifurcation is that if the first three are not performed or are neglected, the person concerned was deemed to incur sin, while a brāhmaṇa is not bound necessarily to earn his livelihood by all or any one of the three viz. teaching, officiating at a sacrifice or receiving gifts.²¹⁹ A few words on each of these duties and privileges must be said at this stage.

v2.c20.3

²¹⁸ द्विजातीनामध्ययनमिज्या दानम् । ब्राह्मणस्याधिकाः प्रवचनयाजनप्रतिग्रहाः । पूर्वेषु नियमस्तु । राज्ञोऽधिकं रक्षणं सर्वभूतानाम् । वैश्यस्याधिकं कृषिवणिक्पशुपाल्यकुसीदम् । गौतम X. 1-3, 7, 50; vide also Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 10. 5-8, Baud. Dh. S. I. 10. 2-5, Vas. II. 13-19, Manu I. 88-90, X. 75-79, Yāj. I. 118-119, Viṣṇu Dh. S. II. 10-15, Atri 13-15. Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa 28. 3-8.

v2.c20.4

²¹⁹ पूर्वाण्यध्ययनादीनि अवश्यकर्तव्यानि । अकुर्वन्प्रत्यवैति कुर्वंश्चाभ्युदेति । प्रवचनादीनि तु वृत्त्यर्थानि । अतोऽकरणे न प्रत्यवायः । करणे नाभ्युदयः । हरदत्त on गौ. X. 3 ; अत इज्यादीन्यवश्यं कर्तव्यानि न प्रतिग्रहादीनि । मित० on या. I. 118.

v2.c20.5

*Study (of Vedas).* It has been already stated (p. 38) that brāhmaṇa and learning had become indissolubly connected even in early Vedic periods. We see in the Śatapatha Br. and in the Upaniṣads that certain kings had attained eminence as philosophers or students of *brahma-vidyā* and then even learned brāhmaṇas came to them as pupils. For example, Yājñavalkya learnt from Janaka (Śat. Br. XI. 6. 21. 5), Bālāki Gārgya from Ajātaśatru, king of Kāśī (Bṛ. Up. II. 1 and Kauṣītaki Up. IV), Śvetaketu Āruṇeya from Pravāhaṇa²²⁰ Jaivali (Chān. Up. V. 3), five brāhmaṇas from Aśvapati, king of Kekaya (Chān. V. 11). In Bṛ. Up. (IV. 2. 1) Janaka is described by Yājñavalkya as one who had studied the Vedas and Upaniṣads.²²¹ From this it may be inferred that some kṣatriyas at least spent a good deal of time in the study of religious and philosophical doctrines. The conclusion²²² that is sometimes drawn by certain writers that kṣatriyas or kings were the pioneers in brahmavidyā cannot be accepted as correct. The germs of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads are seen in the later hymns of the Ṛgveda, in the Atharvaveda and in some of the Brāhmaṇa treatises. The Upaniṣads are full of brāhmaṇas who independently propounded various aspects of *brahma-vidyā* and there is no reason to suppose that the few kṣatriyas referred to as masters of the vidyā were the only persons who first attained to that position. There are hardly any ancient passages to show that vaiśyas devoted any portion of their time to veda study. The Kāṭhaka-Saṁhitā²²³ (IX. 16) indicates that all varṇas studied the Veda since it speaks of a person not a brāhmaṇa, having studied (Vedic) lores and yet not shining (by his learning).

v2.c20.6

²²⁰ प्रवाहण जैवलि says in छान्दोग्य V. 3. 7 that पञ्चाग्निविद्या was not known to ब्राह्मणs till he imparted it to गौतम ‘यथा मा त्वं गौतमावदो यथेयं न प्राक् त्वत्तः पुरा विद्या ब्राह्मणान्गच्छति तस्मात् सर्वेषु लोकेषु क्षत्रस्यैव प्रशासनमभूदिति’ ।; vide बृह. उप. VI. 2. 8. where similar words occur about the same विद्या.

v2.c20.7

²²¹ एवं वृन्दारक आढ्यः सन्नधीतवेद उक्तोपनिषत्क इतो विमुच्यमानः क्व गमिष्यसीति नाहं तद्भगवन्वेद यत्र गमिष्यामीति । बृह. उ. IV. 2. 1.

v2.c20.8

²²² Vide Deussen's ‘Das System des Vedānta’, 1883, (pp. 18-19) ‘the real cherisher of those thoughts was originally the caste of the kṣatriyas, rather than the caste of the priests. Over and over again we come across the situation that the brāhmaṇa asks the kṣatriya for information’ and Deussen refers only to six passages (Bṛ. Up. II. 1, VI. 2, Ch. Up. V. 3 and V. 11 and Kauṣītaki Up. I. 1 and IV. 1). Vide also ‘Philosophy of the Upanishads’ (translated by Geden, 1905, pp. 17-19). In the first place these are too few passages out of the vast Upaniṣad literature to found the sweeping generalisation in which the German savant indulges. In the second place in Bṛ. Up. II. 1 and Kauṣītaki Up. IV. there is no statement that brahmavidyā was known only to kṣatriyas; on the contrary Ajātaśatru expresses surprise that a brāhmaṇa should approach a kṣatriya for the expounding of brahmavidyā and says that this is opposed to the natural (or usual) order of affairs. This shows that Ajātaśatru was an exception and that brāhmaṇas usually taught brahmavidyā. In Kauṣītaki I. 1. and Ch. Up. V. 11 all that is narrated is that Gautama Śvetaketu learnt from Citra Gārgyāyaṇi and certain śrotriyas like Aupamanyava learnt Vaiśvānaravidyā from Aśvapati Kaikeya. But nothing is said here about brahmavidyā being first known to kṣatriyas only. In Bṛ. Up. VI. 2 and Ch. Up. V. 11 it is no doubt stated that ‘*this Vidyā*’ was not known to any brāhmaṇa till then; but ‘this vidyā’ does not mean the whole of the philosophy of brahma, but only that particular doctrine which bears the name of pañcāgnividyā. This vidyā no doubt propounds the doctrine of transmigration in a figurative and somewhat picturesque way. But that doctrine is elsewhere elaborated by brāhmaṇas like Yājñavalkya to the brāhmaṇas in king Janaka's court and to Janaka himself (vide Bṛ. Up. III. 2. 13 and IV. 4. 3-4). Nor can it be said that the doctrine of transmigration was not at all known before the Upaniṣads. The same views are echoed by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar in ‘Verhand-lungen des VII *(Continued from last page)* Internationalen Orientalisten Congresses zu Wien (Arische Sec. pp. 108–109) and in 'Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism' p. 9 'Kṣatriyas engaged themselves in active speculation on religious matters about the time of the Upaniṣads and are mentioned as the original possessors of the new knowledge,' and the learned Doctor refers only to Ch. Up. V. 3 and V. 11. It may be stated that Hopkins (in 'Ethics of India' 1924 p. 63), Barth (Religions of India p. 65) and Vedic Index (vol. II p. 206) do not subscribe to these views of Deussen and Bhandarkar.

v2.c20.9

²²³ योऽब्राह्मणो विद्यामनूच्य नेव रोचेत स एतांश्चतुर्होतॄनरण्यां परेल्य दर्भस्तम्ब-मुद्ग्रथ्य ब्राह्मणं दक्षिणतो निषाद्य व्याचक्षीत। काठकसं. IX. 16.

v2.c20.10

As to brāhmaṇas the matter stands thus. The Nirukta (II. 4) contains four²²⁴ verses (which are called Vidyāsūkta), the first of which says that *vidyā* came to the brāhmaṇa and requested him to guard her as his treasure. The Mahābhāṣya²²⁵ of Patañjali quotes as an *āgama* (Vedic passage) the words 'a brāhmaṇa should study and understand without any motive (of profit) dharma, the Veda with its six subsidiary lores (viz. phonetics etc.)'. Manu IV. 147 says 'a brāhmaṇa should always and assiduously study the Veda alone; that (Veda study) is his highest dharma; everything else is inferior *dharma*'. Yāj. (I. 198) observes 'the Creator created brāhmaṇas for the preservation of the vedas, for the satisfaction of the gods and pitṛs, for the safeguarding of dharma.' Atri (25) contains the same idea. Other²²⁶ sages say that he in whose family Veda (Vedic study) and vedī (consecration of fires for śrauta rites) are given up for three generations becomes a durbrāhmaṇa (an unworthy or bad brāhmaṇa). The Tai. S. (II. 1. 10. 1) prescribes a rite for a durbrāhmaṇa in whose family cessation of drinking soma occurred for generations and who himself desired to drink soma.

v2.c20.11

²²⁴ The same four verses occur in Vas. Dh. S. II. 8–11, three of them except 'adhyāpitā ye' in Viṣṇu Dh. S. 29. 9–10 and 30. 47; Manu II. 114–115 expresses the ideas of two out of them, but in different words.

v2.c20.12

²²⁵ ब्राह्मणेन निष्कारणो धर्मः षडङ्गो वेदोऽध्येयो ज्ञेय इति। महाभाष्य (vol. I. p. 15).

v2.c20.13

²²⁶ अथाप्युदाहरन्ति-यस्य वेदश्च वेदी च विच्छिद्येते त्रिपुरुषम्। स वै दुर्ब्राह्मणो नाम यश्चैव वृषलीपतिः। बौधायनगृह्यपरिभाषा I. 10. 5-6. This is quoted as Yama's by Aparārka pp. 286, 449. Auśanasa (chap. IV p. 524, Jiv.) has the verse, but the last pāda is श्राद्धादौ न कदाचन. Vide for दुर्ब्राह्मण the following आश्विनं धूम्रल्लाममालभेत यो दुर्ब्राह्मणः सोमं पिपासेत् । अश्विनौ वै देवानांमसोमपावास्तां तौ पश्चात्सोमपीथं प्राप्नुताम् । तै. सं. II. 1. 10. 1; vide also तै. सं. II. 1. 5. 5 ऐन्द्राग्नं पुनरुत्सृष्टमालभेत य आ तृतीयात्पुरुषात् सोमं न पिबेत्।

v2.c20.14

*Teaching the Veda*—It is probable that in very remote times the son was taught the Veda by his father. The story of Śvetaketu Āruṇeya (Chāndogya V. 3. 1. and VI. 1. 1-2 and Bṛ. Up. VI. 2. 1) shows that he learnt all the Vedas from his father and the legend in the Bṛ. Up. (V. 2. 1) that the gods, men and *asuras* learnt from their father Prajāpati points in the same direction.²²⁷ Ṛg. VII. 103. 5 shows that instruction was oral and consisted in the pupil repeating the words uttered by the teacher.²²⁸ Whatever may have been the case in very remote times, from the times of the Brāhmaṇa literature and in the times of the dharmaśāstras teaching Vedic literature was almost universally in the hands of brāhmaṇas. Some kṣatriya teachers or philosophers are referred to in the Śatapatha (VIII. 1. 4. 10 and XI. 6. 2) and elsewhere, but they are generally held in low esteem. The Āp. Dh. S.²²⁹ (II. 2. 4. 25-28) lays down that the brāhmaṇa alone can be the teacher (of a brāhmaṇa), but in distress (i. e. in the absence of a brāhmaṇa teacher), a brāhmaṇa may learn from a kṣatriya or vaiśya, but the only service (which as a pupil) he should render to a kṣatriya or vaiśya teacher is to go after him (and not shampooing his feet etc.) and after the brāhmaṇa finishes his study, the brāhmaṇa may go in front (of his kṣatriya teacher). Gaut. (VII. 1-3) and Manu (X. 1, II. 241) lay down the same rules. Manu (II. 242) adds that a perpetual student (naiṣṭhika brahmacārī) should not stay as a pupil with a teacher who is not a brāhmaṇa and that a brāhmaṇa may learn even from a śūdra a useful or efficacious craft (II. 238). The profession of teaching the Veda could not have brought much money or wealth to brāhmaṇas, since very great emphasis was laid, as we shall see later, on teaching without any prior agreement about payment. It was the privilege of a brāhmaṇa alone to officiate as a priest. Jaimini²³⁰ says that, as the kṣatriya and vaiśya cannot be priests (ṛtviks), the sattra (a sacrifice extending over many days or years) could be performed only by brāhmaṇas. The Kātyāyana Śrautasūtra uses a similar argument. When Viśvāmitra agreed to perform a sacrifice for Triśaṅku who had been cursed to be a cāṇḍāla, the Rāmāyaṇa²³¹ says that the gods and sages would not accept the oblations. It is doubtful whether the same rigid rule prevailed in ancient Vedic days. In Ṛg. X. 98. 7 it is said that Devāpi was the purohita of Śantanu and the Nirukta (II. 10) adds that Devāpi and Śantanu were brothers and descendants of Kuru. So, according to the Nirukta at least, a kṣatriya could be a purohita in Vedic times. It may be admitted that the Ṛg. itself does not expressly say that they were brothers. In modern times many writers often speak of brāhmaṇas as the priestly caste or as priests. But this is not a very accurate statement. All brāhmaṇas never were nor are priests; besides even in modern times when caste is so rigid all priests in all temples and shrines are not brāhmaṇas. Some brāhmaṇas became the family priests (purohitas) of kings, many engaged as ṛtviks at solemn śrauta sacrifices or at domestic rites and ceremonies. Temple priests are comparatively a later institution and they were generally looked down upon in olden times and are regarded as inferior even in modern times.²³² Manu (III. 152) says that a devalaka i. e. a brāhmaṇa who took remuneration to perform service before the image in a temple for three years continuously was unfit to be invited at a śrāddha or to officiate in a sacrifice for gods.

v2.c20.15

²²⁷ त्रयः प्राजापत्याः प्रजापतौ पितरि ब्रह्मचर्यमूषुर्देवा मनुष्या असुरा उषित्वा ब्रह्मचर्यं देवा ऊचुः। बृ. उ. V. 2. 1.

v2.c20.16

²²⁸ यदेषामन्यो अन्यस्य वाचं शाक्तस्येव वदति शिक्षमाणः। ऋ. VII. 103. 5.

v2.c20.17

²²⁹ ब्राह्मण आचार्यः स्मर्यते तु। आपदि ब्राह्मणेन राजन्ये वैश्ये वाध्ययनम्। अनुगमनं च पश्चात्। तत ऊर्ध्वं ब्राह्मण एवाग्रे गतो स्यात्। आप. ध. सू. II. 2. 4. 25-28.

v2.c20.18

²³⁰ ब्राह्मणानां वेतरयोरात्विज्याभावात् । जैमिनि VI. 6. 18; ब्राह्मणा ऋत्विजो भक्षप्रतिषेधादितरयोः । कात्या. श्रौ I. 2. 28.

v2.c20.19

²³¹ क्षत्रियो याजको यस्य चण्डालस्य विशेषतः । कथं सदसि भोक्तारो हविस्तस्य सुरर्षयः ॥ बालकाण्ड 59. 13-14.

v2.c20.20

²³² देवार्चनपरो विप्रो वित्तार्थी वत्सरत्रयम् । असौ देवलको नाम हव्यकव्येषु गर्हितः ॥ देवकोशोपजीवी च नाम्ना देवलको भवेत् । अपांक्तेयः स विज्ञेयः सर्वकर्मसु सर्वदा ॥ देवल quoted in स्मृतिचन्द्रिका II p. 396, the first verse being quoted by अपरार्क also pp. 450, 923.

v2.c20.21

The third means of livelihood permitted to brāhmaṇas was receiving gifts from a worthy or unblemished person. According to Yama²³³ quoted in the Sm. C. (I. p. 179) *pratigraha* (receiving gifts) from a worthy person of the three higher varṇas is superior to the acquisition of wealth by officiating as a priest or by teaching. But Manu (X. 109-11) says that *pratigraha* from an unworthy person (or a śūdra) is worse than the act of teaching him or officiating as a priest for him. Very elaborate rules were laid down about gifts i. e. who should receive gifts, from whom gifts may be received and on what occasions and what things were proper subjects of gift. The latter two matters will be discussed in detail later on. Here the rules about the persons to whom gifts should be made and from whom they were to be accepted will be set out. It appears from the Bṛ. Up. (IV. 1. 3) that even in those ancient times there were prohibitions against receiving gifts from unworthy persons and officiating as priests for the unworthy. And the Bṛ. Up. (V. 14. 5-6) suggests that it is only the learned who could properly accept large gifts.

v2.c20.22

²³³ प्रतिग्रहाध्यापनयाजनानां प्रतिग्रहं श्रेष्ठतमं वदन्ति। प्रतिग्रहाच्छुध्यति जप्यहोमैर्याज्यं तु पापैर्न पुनन्ति वेदाः॥ यम quoted in स्मृतिच० I. p. 179.

v2.c20.23

In the first place, the ideal set before brāhmaṇas was one of poverty, of plain living and high thinking, of forsaking the active pursuit of riches and cherishing cultural preservation and advancement. Manu lays down the general rule that when not in distress a brāhmaṇa should acquire wealth only just sufficient to maintain himself and his family, and to enable him to perform his religious duties without causing any harm to others or by as little harm to others as possible and without unduly worrying his own body (IV. 2-3) and then Manu (IV. 7-8) says²³⁴ that a brāhmaṇa householder may either accumulate so much grain (but not more) as would fill a kusūla (a granary), or a kumbhī²³⁵ or he may have as much corn as would satisfy all his needs for three days or as much as will suffice for the day that is on and that out of these four each succeeding one was superior to each preceding one i. e. one who had no more accumulation of material goods than for the day itself (and who did not care for the morrow) was the best brāhmaṇa. Yāj. I. 128 speaks of a fifth grade viz. a brāhmaṇa should subsist by collecting the ears of corn that are left in the field after the crops are gathered or the single grains of corn so left and Manu (X. 112) says that if a brāhmaṇa cannot maintain himself he may prefer to live on the collection of fallen ears of corn or grains rather than receive gifts. This last mode is designated ṛta by Manu (IV. 5). Manu (IV. 12, 15, 17) lays down that a brāhmaṇa should cultivate supreme contentment and though desirous of happiness should restrain himself (in the pursuit of wealth), he should not, even when in distress, hanker after the acquisition of wealth by excessive attachment or by doing what is forbidden or by accepting gifts from any person whatever (of blemished character etc.) and he should give up pursuits that are opposed to (cause obstacles in) his devotion to Vedic study. Yāj. (I. 129) says the same thing in more concise language. Vyāsa prescribes that a brāhmaṇa should seek to narrow down his means of livelihood and should not hanker after excess of wealth; if he sets about accumulation of wealth he loses the (glorious) status of brāhmaṇya.²³⁶ The Mahābhārata says that when a brāhmaṇa has more corn than he would require to satisfy his needs for three years, then he should offer a sacrifice with that wealth and he should not go on accumulating wealth in vain and that accumulation of vast wealth is a calamity for a brāhmaṇa.²³⁷

v2.c20.24

²³⁴ The words 'kusūla and 'kumbhī' have been variously explained by the commentators; vide Kullūka on Manu IV. 7. According to Kullūka one who has corn sufficient for three years is called 'kusūladhānya' as suggested by Manu X. 7; while 'kumbhīdhānya' is one who has a store of corn for one year. Medhātithi says that there is no restriction to corn only; one who has wealth either in corn or money to satisfy his needs for three years is 'kusūladhānya'; according to Govindarāja, 'kusūladhānya' and 'kumbhīdhānya' are respectively those who have corn for 12 and 6 days. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 128 accepts Govindarāja's explanation.

v2.c20.25

²³⁵ That this ideal of 'kumbhīdhānya' is very ancient is shown by the use of the word kumbhīdhānya in the Mahābhāṣya where it is explained as follows (on Pāṇ. I. 3. 7, vol. I. p. 264) 'कुम्भीधान्यः श्रोत्रिय उच्यते। यस्य कुम्भ्यामेव धान्यं स कुम्भीधान्यः। यस्य पुनः कुम्भ्यां चान्यत्र च नासौ कुम्भीधान्यः.'

v2.c20.26

²³⁶ वृत्तिसङ्कोचमन्विच्छेद्रेहेत धनविस्तरम्। धनलाभे प्रवृत्तस्तु ब्राह्मण्य।देव हीयते॥ व्यास quoted in परा. मा. I. 1. p. 199 and स्मृतिच. I. p. 173.

v2.c20.27

²³⁷ त्रैवार्षिकाद्यदा भक्तादधिकं स्याद्द्विजस्य तु। यजेत तेन द्रव्येण न वृथा साधयेद् धनम्॥ अनुशासन 47. 22; अनर्थो ब्राह्मणस्यैष यद् वित्तनिचयो महान्। अनुशासन 61. 19.

v2.c20.28

Gautama (IX. 63), Yāj. (I. 100), Viṣṇu Dh. S. (63. 1), and Laghu-Vyāsa (II. 8) say that a brāhmaṇa should approach a king (or a rich man) for his *yogakṣema* (i. e. for his livelihood and support). Manu (IV. 33), Yāj. (I. 130), and Vas. Dh. S. (XII. 2) declare that a brāhmaṇa when oppressed by hunger should seek for help (or money) from a king, from his pupil or from one who is able and willing to offer a sacrifice. But a brāhmaṇa should not receive a gift from an irreligious king or other irreligious donor. This implies that if the brāhmaṇa is not hungry and has sufficient wealth either obtained by inheritance or partition or in any other way he should not go about seeking for wealth and should not receive gifts (Manu IV. 34). If a brāhmaṇa cannot secure gifts from the above three, then he may do so from any other worthy *dvijāti*.²³⁸ When even that is not possible and the brāhmaṇa is in difficulties he was allowed to take a gift from anybody including a śūdra (Manu X. 102-103, Yāj. III. 41); but a brāhmaṇa should not seek gifts from a śūdra for the performance of a sacrifice or for *agnihotra*, as thereby he becomes a cāṇḍāla in another birth (Manu XI. 24 and 42, Yāj. 1. 127). A brāhmaṇa trying to support his hungry elders (parents etc.), his dependants (wife, servants etc.), and about to worship gods and honour guests may accept a gift from anybody (except a *patita*), but should not satisfy his own hunger with that wealth (Manu IV. 251, Vas. 14. 13, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 57. 13, Yāj. I. 216). Yāj., however, allowed this even for one's own livelihood. Gaut.²³⁹ (18. 24-25) allows a brāhmaṇa to receive even from a śūdra as much as would enable him to finish marriage ceremonies on which he has embarked or to get materials for a sacrifice when he has begun it. One may take gifts from a śūdra or ugra for paying a fee to one's *guru* at the end of the period of brahmacarya (Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 7. 20-21). A brāhmaṇa was not to seek gifts from a king who was not of kṣatriya lineage nor from butchers, oilmen, keepers of liquor-shops and of brothels nor from courtesans (Manu IV. 84), nor from a king who is avaricious and transgresses the rules of the *śāstras*²⁴⁰ (Yāj. I. 140, Manu IV. 87). The Smṛtis lay down that it is the duty of the king to support śrotriyas (brāhmaṇas learned in the Veda) and brāhmaṇas who are incapable of struggling for their maintenance (Gaut. X. 9-10, Yāj. III. 44, Atri 24) and that if a śrotriya perishes through hunger in the domains of a king, that country would suffer from famine and disease (Manu VII. 134). Yāj. III. 44 lays down that it is the duty of a king to assign a proper means of livelihood to a brāhmaṇa in distress, having regard to the brāhmaṇa's conduct, descent, learning, Vedic study, *tapas*, the members in his family.²⁴¹ The ideal set before brāhmaṇas in the matter of *pratigraha* (receiving gifts) was that he, who though entitled to accept a gift (on account of his Vedic learning and *tapas*) does not take it, attains to the highest worlds (Yāj. I. 213); and Manu (IV. 186) says that though entitled to accept gifts a brāhmaṇa should not again and again resort to that method, since the spiritual power (due to Vedic study) that he acquires is lost by accepting gifts. Another rule about gifts is laid down in many works as follows. When a donor himself goes to the place of a worthy donee and makes a gift that is the best gift, when a donor calls a donee to his place and makes a gift it is middling and when a donor gives if begged by a donee it is inferior.²⁴² Manu (IV. 188-191) prescribes that a man, who is not learned, is reduced to ashes like fuel if he accepts a gift of gold, land, horses, cows, food, clothes, sesame and ghee, that a brāhmaṇa who, being devoid of learning and *tapas* (regulated life), desires to accept gifts sinks (into Hell) as one who sits in a stone boat sinks in water; and that therefore a brāhmaṇa who is not learned should be afraid of receiving gifts.

v2.c20.29

²³⁸ प्रशस्तानां स्वकर्मसु द्विजातीनां ब्राह्मणो भुञ्जीत। प्रतिगृह्णीयाच्च। गौतम 17.1-2.

v2.c20.30

²³⁹ द्रव्यादानं विवाहसिद्धयर्थं धर्मतन्त्रसंयोगे च शूद्रात्। गौतम 18. 24.

v2.c20.31

²⁴⁰ Vide Par. M. I. 1. p. 199 for quotations from Saṁvarta, the Skandapurāṇa, the Viṣṇu-dharmottara condemning the receipt of gifts from irreligious kings. In Anuśāsana 93. 94 the sages say to king Vṛṣadarbhi ‘राजन् प्रतिग्रहो राज्ञां मध्वास्वादो विषोपमः। तज्जानमानः कस्मात्त्वं कुरुषे नः प्रलोभनम् ॥’. यस्य राज्ञस्तु विषये श्रोत्रियः सीदति क्षुधा । तस्यापि तत्क्षुधा राष्ट्रमचिरेणैव सीदति ॥ मनु VII. 134.

v2.c20.32

²⁴¹ We find that kings followed these directions from very ancient times. In Karle Inscription No. 13 (E. I. vol. VII. p. 57) and Nasik cave Inscription No. 12 (E. I. Vol. VIII p. 78) king Uṣavadāta (Ṛṣabhadatta) proclaims that he gave one lakh of cows and 16 villages to brāhmaṇas at Prabhāsa and got some of them married at his expense and that he also fed every year a lakh of brāhmaṇas. In numerous grants of lands and villages the purpose of the grants is said to be to enable the donees to perform the five *Mahāyajñas*, Agnihotra, Vaiśvadeva, the offering of *bali* and *caru* (vide Sarsavni plate of Buddharāja in E. I. vol. 6 p. 298 dated in Kaṭacchuri Saṁvat 361 i. e. 609-10 A. D., Damodarpur plates in E. I. vol. XV. p. 113 dated 443-44 A. D.).

v2.c20.33

²⁴² अभिगम्योत्तमं दानमाहूयैव तु मध्यमम् । अधमं याचमानाय सेवादानं तु निष्फलम् ॥ पराशर I. 29; गत्वा यद्दीयते दानं तदनन्तफलं स्मृतम् । सहस्रगुणमाहूते याचिता तु तदर्धकम् ॥ quoted by the Mit. and Aparārka (p. 291) on Yāj. I. 203. Vide लघुशातातप quoted by Aparārka p. 291 and Śāntiparva 294. 18-19.

v2.c20.34

To the same effect are Yāj. (I. 200–202), Vas. Dh. S. (VI. 32), Auśanasa (Jiv. I. p. 521 which is almost the same as Manu IV. 188). Just as a brāhmaṇa who was not learned was enjoined not to accept a gift, so conversely people were asked to make gifts only to learned and worthy men. Even so early as the Śat. Br. this is emphasized as in IV. 3. 4. 15 (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 344) "thus those cows of his are given to him who is fit to receive a dakṣiṇā and not to him who is unfit'. Vide III. 5. 1. 19 (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 114) also. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 15. 9–10) prescribes 'one should invite for dinner in all religious acts brāhmaṇas who are pure and who have studied the Veda and one should distribute gifts at a proper time and place and on occasions of purificatory rites and when there is a worthy acceptor.'²⁴³ To the same effect are Vas. Dh. S. III, 8 and VI. 30, Manu (III. 128, 132 and IV. 31), Yāj. (I. 201), Dakṣa III. 26 and 31.²⁴⁴ The smṛtis say that gifts given to a brāhmaṇa who has not studied the Veda or who is avaricious and deceitful are fruitless and lead the donor to hell (Manu IV. 192–194, Atri 152, Dakṣa III. 29). Manu (XI. 1–3) says that nine kinds of *snātaka* brāhmaṇas who are poor are the primary objects of the gift of food and fees inside the sacrificial altar; while to others food and wealth may be given outside the altar (bahirvedi).

v2.c20.35

²⁴³ शुचीन्मन्त्रकृतः सर्वकृत्येषु भोजयेत् । देशतः कालतः शौचतः सम्यक्प्रतिग्रहीतृत इति दानानि प्रतिपादयति । आप. ध. सू. II. 6. 15. 9–10.

v2.c20.36

²⁴⁴ यद्यदिष्टतमं लोके यच्चास्य दयितं भवेत् । तत्तद्गुणवते देयं तदेवाक्षयमिच्छता ॥ दक्ष III. 31. This is also संवर्त 44–45, अनुशासनपर्व 59. 7, मार्कण्डेय 35. 52–53, मत्स्यपुराण 72. 39.

v2.c20.37

An exception was made in the case of gifts made without request from the donee. What has been offered unasked may be accepted even from one who is guilty of bad actions, except from unchaste women, impotent persons and *patita* (outcastes or persons guilty of mahāpātakas)—Yāj. I. 215, Manu IV. 248–49, Āp. Dh. S. I. 6. 19. 11–14 (where two verses are quoted from a Purāṇa which are almost the same as Manu IV. 248–249), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 57. 11. Many persons are mentioned in the smṛtis from whom gifts (particularly of food) were not to be accepted (vide Manu IV. 205–224, Vas. Dh. S. XIV. 2–11).

v2.c20.38

Another rule about gifts was that a person should prefer a learned brāhmaṇa who is his neighbour for making a gift to one who is not near; if he did not do so, he incurred sin; but there was no blame in passing over an ignorant or foolish brāhmaṇa who stays near in favour of a worthy but distant brāhmaṇa.²⁴⁵ Vide Vas. Dh. S. III. 9–10, Manu VIII. 392 (which prescribes a fine of one *māṣa* for this), Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti IV. 35–38, Bṛhaspati-smṛti 60 and Laghu-Śātātapa 76–79, Gobhila-smṛti II. 66–69. Devala quoted by Aparārka p. 288 and Par. M. I. part 1 p. 181 say that that brāhmaṇa is a pātra (worthy to receive a gift) who is pure in three respects (viz. as to his parents and his guru), whose means of livelihood are slender, who is tender-hearted and of restrained senses. Vas. Dh. S. VI. 26 and Yāj. I. 200 also define pātra similarly.

v2.c20.39

²⁴⁵ ब्राह्मणातिक्रमो नास्ति मूर्खे मन्त्रविवर्जिते । ज्वलन्तमग्निमुत्सृज्य नहि भस्मनि हूयते ॥ बो. ध. सू. I. 5. 98, वेदव्यास IV. 37 (reads विप्रे वेदविवर्जिते), वसिष्ठ III. 10, गोभिलस्मृति II. 68–69. The मत्स्यपुराण 227. 7 also prescribes a fine for ब्राह्मणातिक्रम ‘द्विजभोज्ये तु संप्नाप्ते प्रतिवेशमभोजयन् । हिरण्यमाषकं दण्ड्यः पापे नास्त्यतिक्रमः॥.’

v2.c20.40

It is not to be supposed that the ideal of poverty and non-acceptance of gifts except under compelling circumstances was only an ideal hardly ever acted upon at any time or in any part of the country. Even in the 20th century rural India has villages with a considerable population of brāhmaṇas where many śrotriyas (learned in the Veda) and *paṇḍits* (those who study śāstras like grammar, logic, mīmāṁsā) are still found who are content with what little patrimony they have got, who engage in the profession of teaching the Veda and śāstras in accordance with ancient rules and who do not go about seeking gifts nor accept invitations for dinner at śrāddhas. In the Śāntiparva 199 brāhmaṇas are divided into two sorts, viz. those who are pravṛtta (i. e. engage in all sorts of activities for acquiring wealth) and those who are nivṛtta and verse 40 defines these latter as those who do not resort to pratigraha (acceptance of gifts).

v2.c20.41

Though *pratigraha* was a special privilege of brāhmaṇas, gifts could be made by anybody to anybody. Yāj. I. 6 says that giving to a worthy person at a proper time is the complete definition of dharma and Viśvarūpa adds that gifts could be made by anybody; but the merit secured by making a gift depended upon the worth and caste of the donee. Gaut. (V. 18),²⁴⁶ Manu VII. 85, Veda-Vyāsa IV. 42, Dakṣa III.

v2.c20.42

²⁴⁶ समाद्विगुणसाहस्रामन्त्यानि फलान्यब्राह्मणब्राह्मणश्रोत्रियवेदपारगेभ्यः । गौ. V. 18; सममब्राह्मणे दानं द्विगुणं ब्राह्मणब्रुवे । प्राधीते शतसाहस्रमनन्तं वेदपारगे ॥ मनु VII. 85; वेदव्यास IV. 42 and Dakṣa read सहस्रगुणमाचार्ये which reading is noted by Kullūka also and Vedavyāsa (IV. 43–47) explains the words ब्राह्मणब्रुव, आचार्य and वेदपारग.

v2.c20.43

28 say that a gift given to a brāhmaṇa (who is only so by caste, but is not learned), to a śrotriya (or ācārya) and to one who has completely mastered all the Vedas (with their subsidiary lores) respectively confers merit which is twice, a hundred thousand times or an infinite number of times more than the merit conferred by a gift to a non-brāhmaṇa. Gautama²⁴⁷ (V. 19-20) and Baudhāyana II. 3. 24 further make it obligatory to give outside the sacrificial altar according to one's ability a portion of one's wealth to a brāhmaṇa, *śrotriya* and *veda-pāraga* when they seek help for giving a dakṣiṇā to their teacher (at the end of the period of studenthood), for their own marriage, for medicine, for their own maintenance (that day), for a sacrifice, for their own study or journey, and when everything has been given in a Viśvajit sacrifice and that one must give cooked food to all others who beg for it (except brāhmaṇa, śrotriya and vedapāraga). Manu (XI. 1-3) gives practically the same rule. In the Vaiśvadeva the householder was enjoined to give food to every one including even dogs and cāṇḍālas, as we shall see later on (under²⁴⁸ Vaiśvadeva). Medhātithi on Manu IV. 5 says that when a person makes a gift through compassion it is not the *dāna* and *pratigraha* spoken of by the śāstra; just as when a man gives instruction as to what is beneficial he does not care to see what the caste of the person to be benefitted by the advice is, so a gift made through compassion is made irrespective of caste; and that when non-brāhmaṇas reduced to a helpless condition take what is given by others, it cannot be said that they are assuming to themselves the livelihood by *pratigraha* which is a peculiar means of livelihood for brāhmaṇas.²⁴⁹

v2.c20.44

²⁴⁷ गुर्वर्थनिवेशौषधार्थ-वृत्तिक्षीण-यक्ष्यमाणाध्ययनाध्वसंयोगवैश्वजितेषु द्रव्यसंविभागो बहिर्वेदि । भिक्षमाणेषु कृतान्नमितरेषु ॥ गौतम V. 19. 20; बौ. ध. सू. II. 3. 24 reads सुब्राह्मणश्रोत्रियवेदपारगेभ्यः before गुर्वर्थ० and यथाशक्ति कार्यः before बहिर्वेदि. Vide रघुवंश V. 24 'गुर्वर्थमर्थी श्रुतपारदृश्वा रघोः सकाशादुपलब्धुकामम्।'

v2.c20.45

²⁴⁸ सर्वान्वैश्वदेवे भागिनः कुर्वीता श्वचण्डालेभ्यः । आप. ध. सू. II. 4. 9. 5.

v2.c20.46

²⁴⁹ ननु च करुणया दानमदृष्टायैव। नेति ब्रूमः। न तत्र दानधर्मः। किं तर्हि करुणाभ्यासात्परोपकाराद्वा। तत्र यथा। हितोपदेशादावनुग्राह्यस्य विधिर्जात्यादि नापेक्षते तद्वत्करुणया दाने। तथा च शिष्टा नैवंविधे दाने वेदतत्त्वार्थविदुषे ब्राह्मणायेत्येतदनुरुध्यन्ते। अत एवाब्राह्मणा अपि दैन्यमापन्नाः परेण दत्तं गृह्णना न ब्राह्मणवृत्तिं प्रतिग्रहमभ्रिता भवन्ति। मेधातिथि on मनु IV. 5. The words वेदतत्त्वार्थ० quoted here are from मनु III. 96. The Par. M. (I part 1 p. 189) quotes a verse from the Mahābhārata, पङ्ग्वन्धबधिरा मूका व्याधिनोपहताश्च ये । भर्तव्यास्ते महाराज न तु देयः प्रतिग्रहः ॥.' The idea is that प्रतिग्रह is a privilege, while charity to the poor and the diseased is due to *dayā* (compassion).

v2.c20.47

In spite of the noble ideal set before brāhmaṇas it appears that, owing to the growth of the Brāhmaṇa population and the paucity of gifts and invitations to officiate as priests, the strict rules about *dāna* and *pratigraha* had to be relaxed and in course of time it came to be said that a brāhmaṇa, whether learned or ignorant, was to be a donee and may accept gifts without any scruples. The first inroad²⁵⁰ was made by the rule that in rites meant for gods the character and learning of brāhmaṇas need not be deeply inquired into, but that such enquiry was proper only when they were to be invited for śrāddha and other rites for the dead, the only exceptions being that a brāhmaṇa, who is a thief or is guilty of a *mahāpātaka*, or is impotent or an atheist was not to be invited even in rites for the gods (vide Manu III. 149-150). Gradually such views as the following came to be recommended. The Skandapurāṇa²⁵¹ as quoted by Aparārka (p. 455) makes Śiva say to Pārvatī 'the Vedic revelation is that śrāddha (food) should be given (to a brāhmaṇa) after inquiry (into his learning and character), but straightforward action is better than scrutiny. When one offers śrāddha straightforwardly without scrutiny, his pitṛs are satisfied and also gods.' The Vṛddha-Gautama smṛti (chap. III pp. 512-513 and 518, Jiv.) says 'Brāhmaṇas, whether well conducted or of bad conduct, whether vulgar or of polished intellect, should not be disrespected like fires covered with ashes. Just as fire in whatever condition it may be, is a great deity, so a brāhmaṇa is a great deity in whatever condition he may be.'²⁵² 'The wise should not despise brāhmaṇas, whether they be squint-eyed, humpbacked, dwarfs, indigent or diseased, since they are my forms (i. e. of Kṛṣṇa)'. The Anuśāsanaparva (152. 19)²⁵³ says 'a brāhmaṇa who is not learned is a god and he is a worthy object for gifts and is a great purifier; a learned brāhmaṇa is a greater god (than an unlearned one).'

v2.c20.48

²⁵⁰ ब्राह्मणाञ परीक्षेत क्षत्रियो दानधर्मवित् । दैवे कर्मणि पित्र्ये तु न्याय्यमाहुः परीक्षणम् ॥ अनुशासन 90. 2. An instructive parallel may be found in Article XXVI of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church, whereby sacraments administered by a priest who is sinful do not suffer in efficacy.

v2.c20.49

²⁵¹ श्राद्धं परीक्ष्य दातव्यमित्येषा वैदिकी श्रुतिः । परीक्षणाच्च रम्भोरु आर्जवं गुणवत्तरम् । अपरीक्ष्य तु यो दद्याच्छ्राद्धमार्जवमास्थितः । तस्य तृप्यन्ति पितरो देवताश्च न संशयः quoted by अपरार्क p. 455.

v2.c20.50

²⁵² दुर्वृत्ता वा सुवृत्ता वा प्राकृता वा सुसंस्कृताः । ब्राह्मणा नावमन्तव्या भस्मच्छन्ना इवाग्नयः ॥ ...... काणाः कुब्जा वामनाश्च दरिद्रा व्याधितास्तथा । नावमान्या द्विजाः प्राज्ञैर्ममरूपा हि ते द्विजाः ॥ वृद्धगौतम (chap. III. pp. 512, 513); vide वनपर्व 200. 88-89 दुर्वेदा वा सुवेदा वा प्राकृताः संस्कृतास्तथा । ...... अग्नयः ॥ यथा श्मशाने दीप्तौजाः पावको नैव दुष्यति । एवं विवद्वानविद्वाम्वा ब्राह्मणो दैवतं महत् ॥

v2.c20.51

²⁵³ अविद्वान् ब्राह्मणो देवः पात्रं वै पावनं महत् । विद्वान् भूयस्तरो देवः पूर्णसागरसंनिभः। एवं यद्यप्यनिष्टेषु वर्तते सर्वकर्मसु । सर्वथा ब्राह्मणो मान्यो दैवतं विद्धि तत्परम् ॥ अनुशासन 152. 19 and 23.

v2.c20.52.1

As already said above teaching could have brought very little wealth. There was no state educational system as in modern times with stability of tenure and graded rates of salary. Nor was there any Copyright Act under which a learned man could make money by writing books for students and the general public. The brāhmaṇas had no organised corporate body like the Anglican Church with its hierarchy of Archbishops, Bishops and other divines, nor was there in ancient India any practice of making wills whereby large estates came to the Church as in England (where statutes of Mortmain had to be passed to prevent enormous estates from going to the Church).²⁵⁴ The emoluments of officiating priests and gifts given by charitably disposed persons must have been fitful and offered only a precarious means of livelihood, as they depended upon the volition of others and as the smṛtis recommended that even in śrāddha too many brāhmaṇas should not be invited.²⁵⁵ Besides all brāhmaṇas could not have possessed the memory, intelligence and patience required to master the Vedic Literature after intensive study for decades of years. Therefore, there is no wonder that many brāhmaṇas were compelled by the force of circumstances to pursue for their livelihood avocations other than the three prescribed ones. From ancient times this was recognised by the dharmaśāstra works. Gaut. (VII. 6 and 7) says that if a brāhmaṇa cannot maintain himself by means of the three peculiar modes of livelihood viz.

v2.c20.52.2

teaching or officiating as a priest for even an unworthy person or by receiving gifts, then he should maintain himself by doing the work peculiar to a kṣatriya (i. e. by fighting and protecting people) and if even that is not possible then by following the avocations of a vaiśya and Gaut. VII. 26 ordains that a kṣatriya may resort to the profession of the vaiśya in similar circumstances. Baudhāyana Dh. S. (II. 2. 77) says the same and then it adds (II. 2. 78 and 80) that Gautama says that it should not be so as the duties of a kṣatriya would be too terrific for a brāhmaṇa and that he should pursue the avocation of a vaiśya. Baudhāyana (I. 1. 20) notes that the profession of arms was practised by the brāhmaṇas of the north. Vas. Dh. S. (II. 22) lays down that persons (of the three higher varṇas) should, if they cannot maintain themselves by the peculiar avocations of their varṇa, resort to the means of livelihood prescribed for the varṇa which is immediately below their own. Manu X. 81-82, Yāj. III. 35, Nārada (ṛnādāna 56), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54. 28, Śaṅkha-Likhita say the same²⁵⁶ thing. It is further laid down by the same works that a person belonging to a lower varṇa should not resort to the modes of livelihood peculiar to a higher varṇa (*vide* Vas. Dh. S. II. 23, Manu X. 95).

v2.c20.52.3

The smṛtis further ordain that when the calamity or distress ceases, the person who has taken to the avocations of another varṇa should perform prāyaścitta, should resume his proper avocations and abandon the wealth acquired by him by resorting to improper avocations; vide Manu XI. 192-193; Viṣṇu Dh. S. (54. 27-28), Yāj. III. 35, Nārada (ṛṇādāna 59-60). Manu (X. 96) prescribes that, if a person of a lower varṇa maintains himself through greed by the avocation²⁵⁷ peculiar to a higher varṇa, the king should confiscate the wealth and should at once banish him from the country. A classical example of the keenness with which good kings were expected to prevent persons of lower varṇas doing the actions allowed only to higher varṇas is furnished by the story of Śambūka narrated in the Rāmāyaṇa (VII. 73-76.) The Uttararāmacarita of Bhavabhūti echoes the same sentiments. A śūdra²⁵⁸ who engaged in *japa*, *homa*, *tapas* or became an ascetic or repeated (Vedic) *mantras* was to be punished (or killed) by the king and was also guilty of mortal sin. Manu (X. 98) allows a vaiśya, if unable to maintain himself by the pursuits peculiar to his varṇa, to live by means of the actions proper for a śūdra viz. serving members of the twice-born classes. It is also said by Gaut. (VII.

v2.c20.52.4

22-24) that a brāhmaṇa may maintain himself in any way if unable to maintain himself (by the three means specially prescribed for him), but he should not resort to the actions peculiar to a śūdra, that according to some ācāryas he may do even those actions when life itself is in danger, but that when he stoops to the actions peculiar to śūdras for maintenance he should not mix himself up with members of that varṇa (by sitting on the same seat with them etc.) or eat articles forbidden to brāhmaṇas (such as leek and garlic) and should not be a mere menial servant. Vide Manu (IV. 4 and 6) and Nārada (ṛṇādāna 57).

v2.c20.53

²⁵⁴ Vide Holdsworth's History of English Law (4th ed.) vol. III p. 87 for the origin of statutes of Mortmain from 1279 A. D. to 51 and 52 Vic. chap. 42.

v2.c20.54

²⁵⁵ Vide Manu III. 125-126, Gaut. 15. 7-8, Yāj. I. 228.

v2.c20.55

²⁵⁶ आपत्काले मातापितृमतो बहुभृत्यस्यानन्तरका वृत्तिरिति कल्पः। तस्यानन्तरका वृत्तिः क्षात्रोऽभिनिवेशः। एषमप्यजीवन्वैश्यमुपजीवेत्। शङ्खलिखित quoted by अपरार्क p. 930.

v2.c20.56

²⁵⁷ न कथंचन कुर्वीत ब्राह्मणः कर्म वार्षलम् । वृषलः कर्म वा ब्राह्मं पतनीये हि ते तयोः ॥ नारद (ऋणादान 57)

v2.c20.57

²⁵⁸ वध्यो राज्ञा स वै शूद्रो जपहोमपरश्च यः । ततो राष्ट्रस्य हन्तासौ यथा वह्नेश्च वै जलम् ॥ जपस्तपस्तीर्थयात्रा प्रव्रज्या मन्त्रसाधनम् । देवताराधनं चैव स्त्रीशूद्रपतनानि षट् ॥ अत्रि 19. 136-137 (Anan. ed.); vide वनपर्व 150. 36

v2.c20.58

According²⁵⁹ to all ancient authorities the special duty of the śūdra was to render service to the twice-born classes, to obtain his livelihood from them and serving a brāhmaṇa conferred greater happiness or benefit on the śūdra than serving a kṣatriya and serving a kṣatriya conferred greater good than serving a vaiśya. According to Gaut. (X. 60-61), Manu (X. 124-125) and others, the śūdra was to wear the old or cast-off clothes, umbrellas, sandals, mattress etc. of his patron and the leavings of food (ucchiṣṭa) were to be given to him. If he became old and unable to do work while serving anyone of the higher varṇas he was to be fed by him whom he had formerly served (Gaut. X. 63). In course of time the position of the śūdra improved. If a śūdra²⁶⁰ was unable to maintain himself and his family by serving *dvijas*, he was allowed to maintain himself by having recourse to crafts like carpentry or drawing or painting pictures etc. Nārada (ṛṇādāna 58) allowed him to perform the work of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas in times of distress. Yāj. (I. 120) also says that, if unable to maintain himself by the service of *dvijas*, the śūdra may carry on the profession of a vaiśya or may take to the various crafts. The Mahābhārata allowed a śūdra²⁶¹ who could not maintain himself by the service of higher varṇas to resort to the avocations of a vaiśya, to rearing cattle and to crafts. Others like Laghu-Āśvalāyana (22. 5), Vṛddha-Hārīta (VII. 189, 192) allowed agriculture to the śūdra. The Kālikāpurāṇa quoted in the Gṛ. R. (p. 479) allowed the śūdra to sell all commodities except honey, skins, lākṣā (lac), wines and flesh, while Bṛhat-Parāśara (p. 101) prohibited the śūdra from selling wine and flesh. Devala quoted in the Mit. (on Yāj. I. 120) prescribes that the śūdra should serve the twice-born and may engage in agriculture, rearing cattle, carrying loads, sale of commodities, drawing and painting, dancing, singing and playing on musical instruments like the flute, lute, drums and tabors.²⁶² The foregoing will show that the śūdra gradually rose in social status so far as occupation was concerned and could follow all occupations except those specially reserved for the brāhmaṇa, so much so that śūdras became even kings and Manu (IV. 61) had expressly to enjoin upon brāhmaṇas not to dwell in the kingdom of a śūdra.²⁶³ The smṛtis however did not like that wealth should be accumulated in the hands of the śūdra (though they were quite willing that kṣatriyas and vaiśyas should command all wealth). Gaut. (X. 64-65) says that the śūdra's accumulation of wealth should be for the support and benefit of the other varṇas. Manu (X. 129) says that a śūdra, even though able to accumulate wealth, should not do so, as (on account of his pride of wealth and his ignorance) he may cause obstructions and trouble to brāhmaṇas. Śūdras were divided into numerous subcastes. But there were two main divisions. One was *aniravasita śūdras* (such as carpenters and blacksmiths) and the other *niravasita śūdras* (like cāṇḍālas); vide note 200 above. Another division of śūdras was into those who were bhojyānna (i. e. food prepared by whom could be partaken by brāhmaṇas) and *abhojyānna*. In the first were included one's slave, one's cowherd, barber, family friend and one who shared with one the crop reared on one's land (vide Yāj. I. 166). It is worthy of note that even the Mit. adds the potter to the above list. All the other śūdras were such that a brāhmaṇa could not take his food. A third and well-known division was into *sacchūdra* (well-conducted) and *asac-chūdra*. The former class included those śūdras who followed good occupations or trade, served *dvijas* and had given up meat and drinking or selling liquor.²⁶⁴ The Śūdrakamalākara (p. 60) says that asat-śūdras do not incur sin even if they partake of meat and liquor, provided they do not eat forbidden meat and that there is no lapse if one comes in contact with a śūdra that drinks liquor.

v2.c20.59

²⁵⁹ शुश्रूषा शूद्रस्येतरेषां वर्णानाम् । पूर्वस्मिन् पूर्वस्मिन्वर्ण निश्रेयसं भूयः। आप. ध. I. 1. 1. 7-8; परिचर्या चोत्तरेषाम् । तेभ्यो वृत्तिं लिप्सोत । तत्र पूर्वं परिचरेत् । गौतम X. 57-59; प्रजापतिर्हि वर्णानां दासं शूद्रमकल्पयत् । शान्तिपर्व 60. 28; vide also Vas. Dh. S. II. 20, Manu X. 121-123, Yāj. I. 120, बौ. ध. सू. I. 10. 5, वनपर्व 150. 36.

v2.c20.60

²⁶⁰ शिल्पाजीवं भृतिं चैव शूद्राणां व्यदधात्प्रभुः । वायुपुराण 8. 171; शूद्रस्य द्विजशुश्रूषा सर्वशिल्पानि चाप्यथ । शङ्खस्मृति I. 5; मनु X. 99-100.

v2.c20.61

²⁶¹ वाणिज्यूं पाशुपाल्यं च तथा शिल्पोपजीवनम् । शूद्रस्यापि विधीयन्ते यदा वृत्तिर्न जायते ॥ शान्तिपर्व 295. 4; शूद्रस्य द्विजशुश्रूषा सर्वशिल्पानि चाप्यथ । विक्रयः सर्वपण्यानां शूद्रकर्म उदाहृतम् ॥ उशनस् quoted in the स्मृतिच. I. p. 171; vide लघ्वाश्वलायन 22. 5.

v2.c20.62

²⁶² शूद्रधर्मो द्विजातिशुश्रूषा पापवर्जनं कलत्रादिपोषणं कर्षणपशुपालनभारोद्वहनपण्यव्यवहार-चित्रकर्म-नृत्य-गीत-वेणु-वीणामुरजमृदङ्गवादनादीनि । देवल in मिता० on या. I. 120.

v2.c20.63

²⁶³ Compare आप. ध. सू. I. 11. 32. 18 (शूद्रान्नं शूद्राभ्यरितंञ्च देशान्न सेवेत) with मनु IV. 61. This dictum of Manu must have been pronounced at a time when śūdra kings were rare; otherwise it would have no meaning and brāhmaṇas would have been compelled to leave India. So it follows that Manu did not hold the view propounded in certain Purāṇas that after the Nandas there would be no kṣatriya kings and only śūdras will be kings.

v2.c20.64

²⁶⁴ न सुरां संन्धयेद्यस्तु आपणेषु गृहेषु च । न विक्रीणाति च तथा सच्छूद्रो हि स उच्यते । भविष्यपुराण ( ब्राह्म section ) chap. 44. 32.

v2.c20.65

A few words may now be said about brāhmaṇas being allowed to follow the occupations of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas. From very ancient times brāhmaṇas appear to have followed the profession of arms. Pāṇ. (V. 2. 71) teaches²⁶⁵ the formation of the word 'brāhmaṇaka' as applied to a country, which means 'in which Brāhmaṇas follow the profession of arms.' Kauṭ.²⁶⁶ (IX. 2) quotes the view of the ācāryas that when there are armies composed of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras each preceding one is better for enlistment than each subsequent, but Kauṭ. himself is against this and adds that the enemy may win over the army of brāhmaṇas by prostration before them. Āpastamba was against the idea of brāhmaṇas following the profession of arms. He says (I. 10. 29. 7)²⁶⁷ 'a brāhmaṇa should not catch hold of a weapon even for examining it (much less for attacking others with it)'. Gaut. (VII. 6) allowed a brāhmaṇa to follow kṣatriya's profession in case of distress (āpad) and adds (in VII. 25) that even a brāhmaṇa while still following the peculiar avocation of a brāhmaṇa may wield weapons when his life is in danger. The Baud. Dh. S. (II. 2. 80) quotes a verse 'for saving cows and brāhmaṇas, for preventing the mixture of varṇas, the brāhmaṇa and vaiśya may take to arms from their concern for dharma.' The Vas. Dh. S. (III. 24) allows a brāhmaṇa to wield a weapon for protecting himself and for preventing confusion or mingling of varṇas. Manu (VIII. 348–349) allows all *dvijātis* to resort to weapons where the observance of dharma (or of the duties of varṇas and āśramas) is obstructed (by violent men), when there is a disturbance (due to invasion etc.) involving the twice-born classes, in evil times for protecting one's self, when there is an attack for carrying away cows or other wealth (given as fees) and in order to protect women and brāhmaṇas and he incurs no sin if he kills (for these purposes). Among the heroes of the Mahābhārata there are great warriors and commanders like Droṇa, his son Aśvatthāman, Kṛpa (the maternal uncle of Aśvatthāman) who were brāhmaṇas. The Mahābhārata says that a brāhmaṇa should fight at the order of the king.²⁶⁸ The Śāntiparva (78. 18) calls upon persons of all varṇas to wield arms when the rules for holding society together are broken and when dasyus (robbers or low persons) cause confusion. From ancient times we find brāhmaṇas as commanders and founders of royal dynasties. The famous *Senāpati* Puṣyamitra belonged to the Śuṅga gotra and wrested an empire from the last of the Mauryas about 184 B.C. His line was followed by the Kāṇvāyanas, the founder being minister Vāsudeva, a brāhmaṇa, who killed the last Śuṅga about 72 B.C. We learn from the Talaguṇḍa pillar inscription of Kākusthavarman (E. I. Vol. VIII. p. 24) that the founder of the Kadambas, Mayūraśarman, was a brāhmaṇa. In Maratha history there were the Peshwas and other brāhmaṇa warriors and commanders.

v2.c20.66

²⁶⁵ Pāṇ. V. 2. 71 is not commented on by Patañjali and the Kāśikā explains the sūtra as above. But it is clear that Patañjali knew a country called Brāhmaṇaka as elsewhere he says (vol. II. p. 298 on Pāṇ. IV 2. 104, Vārtika 30, 'ब्राह्मणको नाम जनपदस्तस्मादुभयं प्राप्नोति । ब्राह्मणकीयः ।' ).

v2.c20.67

²⁶⁶ ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियवैश्यशूद्रसैन्यानां तेजःप्राधान्यात् पूर्वं पूर्वं श्रेयः संनाहयितुमित्याचार्याः । नेति कौटिल्यः । प्रणिपातेन ब्राह्मणबलं परोऽभिहारयेत् । कौटिल्य IX. 2.

v2.c20.68

²⁶⁷ परीक्षार्थोपि ब्राह्मण आयुधं नाददीत । आप. ध. I. 10. 29. 7; प्राणसंशये ब्राह्मणोपि शस्त्रमाददीत । गौ. VII. 25; अथाप्युदाहरन्ति । गवार्थे ब्राह्मणार्थे वा वर्णानां वापि संकरे । गृह्णीयातां विप्रविशौ शस्त्रं धर्मव्यपेक्षया ॥ बौ. ध. II. 2. 80; आत्मत्राणे वर्णसंषर्गे ब्राह्मणवैश्यौ शस्त्रमाददीयाताम् । वसिष्ठ III. 24.

v2.c20.69

²⁶⁸ राज्ञो नियोगाद् योद्धव्यं ब्राह्मणेन विशेषतः। वर्तता क्षत्रधर्मेण ह्येवं धर्मविदो विदुः। शल्यपर्व 65. 42.

v2.c20.70

Though it is said that a brāhmaṇa in distress may follow the occupation of a vaiśya, there were several restrictions imposed upon brāhmaṇas following the occupations of money-lending, agriculture, trade, and the rearing of cattle, which were prescribed as the privileged occupations of vaiśyas.

v2.c20.71

As to money-lending, Gaut.²⁶⁹ (X. 5-6) allowed a brāhmaṇa to maintain himself and his family by agriculture, sale of commodities and money-lending only if he did not engage in these personally, but through the agency of others. Vas. Dh. S. (II. 40) enjoins upon brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas not to lend money like usurers and quotes two verses which define usury and say that a userer is a greater sinner than even one who is guilty of brāhmaṇa-murder. Manu (X. 117) also forbids usury to brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas, but allows them to charge a low rate of interest to persons engaged in low actions. Nārada (ṛṇādāna 111) forbids usury to brāhmaṇas even in the direst calamities. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 9. 27. 10) prescribes a prāyaścitta ²⁷⁰ for a brāhmaṇa lending money at usurious rates. Bṛhaspati as quoted²⁷¹ in the Gṛ. R. has a rather amusing verse 'sages have enumerated numerous means of livelihood, but out of all of them money-lending is pre-eminent. There is loss in agriculture due to draught, to the fear of the exactions of the king and the ravages of rats and others, but there is no such loss in money-lending.' It appears that this is only a general or satirical statement and does not recommend money-lending to brāhmaṇas.

First 73 of 256 passages. Read on

Linked texts (81)