History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c25.16
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c25.16
- Language
- English
v2.c25.16.1
In the Ṛg. X. 136. 2, there is a reference⁹⁹⁷ to *munis*, who are wind-girt and who put on brownish dirt (dirty garments). In Ṛg. VIII. 17. 14 Indra is said to be the friend of *munis* (Indro munīnāṃ sakhā) and in Ṛg. X. 136. 4 muni is said to be the friend of all gods. So it appears that even in the times of the Ṛgveda persons who led a life of poverty, contemplation and mortification were known, and were honoured and called munis, while persons corresponding to them among non-vedic people were probably called yatis. But in both these words there is no idea of a certain stage in a well-knit scheme of life. Perhaps the earliest reference to the four āśramas, though somewhat obscure, occurs in the Ait. Br. 33. 11 'what (use is there) of dirt, what use of antelope skin, what use of (growing) the beard, what is the use of *tapas*? O! brāhmaṇas! desire a son, he is a world that is to be highly praised.'⁹⁹⁸ Here it is clear that *ajina* refers to brahmacarya, *śmaśrūṇi* to vānaprasthas (since according to Manu VI. 6 and Gaut. III. 33 the vānaprastha had to grow his hair, beard and nails). Therefore 'malam' and 'tapas' must be taken respectively as indicating the householder and the saṁnyāsin. A much clearer reference to three āśramas occurs in the Chāndogya⁹⁹⁹ Up. II. 23. 1 'there are three branches of dharma, the first (is constituted by) sacrifice, study and charity (i. e. by the stage of householder), the second is (constituted by the performance of) *tapas* (i. e.
v2.c25.16.2
the vānaprastha), the third is the brahmacārī staying in the house of his teacher and wearing himself out till death in the teacher's house; all these attain to the worlds of the meritorious; but one who (has correctly understood *brahma*) and abides in it attains immortality'. Tapas is a characteristic of both vānaprastha and parivrājaka. Therefore in this passage it is possible to hold that the three āśramas (of student, householder and vānaprastha) are mentioned. The last clause about 'brahmasaṁstha' differentiates the three āśramas from him who has knowledge of brahma and holds fast by it. That portion says that the consequence of the knowledge of brahma is immortality ; but it does not say expressly or impliedly that the stage of parivrājaka is a means of attaining the knowledge of brahma. So one may doubt whether saṁnyāsa as an āśrama is spoken of here, but there can be no doubt that the other three are clearly indicated here. Probably in the time of the Chāndogya there was no clear line of demarcation between the āśramas of *vānaprastha* and *saṁnyāsa* and they rather coalesced into each other. Chān. Up. V. 10. 1 and Bṛ. Up. VI. 2. 15 support this conclusion¹⁰⁰⁰. In the Bṛ. Up. III. 5. 1 there is a reference to brāhmaṇas who on apprehending correctly the Supreme Spirit turn away from the desires of progeny, wealth and of securing holy worlds and practise begging. Begging is a characteristic of saṁnyāsa in the sūtras. Yājñavalkya in the Bṛ. Up. IV. 5. 2.
v2.c25.16.3
tells his wife Maitreyī that he was going into a life of *pravrajyā* from being a householder. Muṇḍaka Up. I. 2. 11 refers to begging for him who has knowledge of brahma and Muṇḍaka III. 2. 6 mentions '*saṁnyāsa*'. In the Jābālopaniṣad ¹⁰⁰¹ (4) it is said that Janaka asked Yājñavalkya to expound *saṁnyāsa* and then the four āśramas are distinctly set out 'after finishing the stage of student-hood, one should become a householder; after becoming a householder one should become a forest-dweller, after being a forest-dweller, one should renounce the world; or he may do otherwise viz. he may renounce the world after the stage of student-hood itself or after being an householder or from the forest. The very day on which he becomes desireless, he should renounce the world (become a saṁnyāsin)'. Probably this passage¹⁰⁰² was not before the author of the Vedāntasūtra or he did not regard the Jābālopaniṣad as very authoritative; otherwise there would hardly have been any need for the Vedāntasūtrakāra (in the Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 18-20) to hold a discussion on Chāndogya II. 23. 1.