History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c21.4
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c21.4
- Language
- English
v2.c21.4.1
In the early Vedic literature several of the names of castes that are spoken of in the smṛtis as antyajas occur. We have carmamna (a tanner of hides?) in the Ṛgveda (VIII. 5. 38), the Cāṇḍāla and Paulkasa occur in the Vāj. S., the Vapa or Vaptā (barber) even in the Ṛg., the Vidalakāra or Bidalakāra (corresponding to the buruḍa of the smṛtis) occurs in the Vāj. S. and the Tai. Br., Vāsaḥpalpūlī (washerwoman) corresponding to the Rajaka of the smṛtis in the Vāj. S. But there is no indication in these passages whether these, even if they formed castes, were at all untouchables. The utmost that can be said is that as the Paulkasa is assigned to *bībhatsā* (in Vaj. S. 30. 17) and Cāṇḍāla to Vāyu (in the Puruṣamedha), the Paulkasa lived in such a way as to cause disgust and the Cāṇḍāla lived in the wind (i. e. probably in the open or in a cemetery). The only passage of Vedic literature on which reliance can be placed for some definite statement about cāṇḍālas is in the Chāndogya Up.³⁸⁶ V. 10. 7. where while describing the fate of those souls that went to the world of the moon for enjoying the rewards of some of their actions it is stated 'those who did praiseworthy actions here, quickly acquire birth in a good condition, viz. in the condition of a brāhmaṇa, a kṣatriya or vaiśya, while those whose actions were low (reprehensible) quickly acquire birth in a low condition i. e.
v2.c21.4.2
as a dog, or a boar or a caṇḍāla.' This occurs in Pañcāgnividyā, the purpose of which is to teach *vairāgya* and disgust with the transmigratory world. This passage does not enjoin anything, it is a bare statement by way of explanation or elucidation. All that can be legitimately inferred from this is that the first three varṇas were commended and that caṇḍālas were looked upon as the lowest in the social scale. It is to be noticed that the śūdra varṇa does not occur in this passage at all. So probably even in the times of the Chāndogya the caṇḍāla was looked upon as a śūdra, though lowest among the several śūdra subcastes. The caṇḍāla is equated with the dog and the boar in this passage, but this leads hardly anywhere. It is no doubt stated in the Śat. Br. XII. 4. 1. 4 ³⁸⁷ that 'three beasts are unclean in relation to a sacrifice viz. the vicious (filthy) boar, the ram and the dog.' Here it is clear that every boar is not unclean, but probably only that variety that subsists on the village offal. On the other hand the flesh of boars was said to cause great delight to the Pitṛs when offered in śrāddha (vide Manu III. 270 and Yāj. I. 259). Therefore this Upaniṣad passage does not say anything on the point whether the Caṇḍāla was in its day untouchable. This passage may be compared with another in which the śūdra is said to be a walking cemetery.
v2.c21.4.3
If the śūdra was not untouchable in the Vedic literature, and if he was allowed to be a cook for brāhmaṇas and to wash the feet of brāhmaṇa guests in spite of that passage (as stated in the Dharmasūtras quoted above pp. 161–162), there is no reason to suppose that the Chāndogya passage indicates that the caṇḍāla was untouchable in the remote ages. Another passage is relied upon by orthodox writers to support the theory that untouchability of caṇḍālas is declared in Vedic writings. In the Bṛ. Up. I. 3 the story is narrated that gods and asuras had a strife and the gods thought that they might rise superior to the asuras by the Udgītha. In this vidyā occurs the passage³⁸⁸ 'this devatā (Prāṇa) throwing aside the sin that was death to these devatās (vāk etc.) sent it to the ends of these quarters and he put down the sin of these devatās there; therefore one should not go to people (outside the Āryan pale) nor to the ends (of the quarters) thinking 'otherwise I may fall in with *pāpman* i. e. death'. In the first place there are no peoples expressly named here. Śaṁkara explains that by 'end of the quarters' are meant regions where people opposed to Vedic culture dwell. This description can only apply to people like the mlecchas and not to cāṇḍālas who are not opposed to Vedic knowledge (but who have no adhikāra to learn it). Besides cāṇḍālas might stay outside the village, but they do not stay at the end of the quarters³⁸⁹ (or at the end of the ārya territory).
v2.c21.4.4
Hence this passage does not help in establishing the theory of untouchability for Vedic times.