History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c20.52
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c20.52
- Language
- English
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).