History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c20.14

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.