History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c25.30

v2.c25.30

The three āśramas of householder, forest hermit and saṁnyāsa will be dealt with in detail hereafter. Only one question about āśramas in general remains to be discussed. With reference to the four āśramas, there are three different points of view (*pakṣas*) viz. *samuccaya* (orderly co-ordination), *vikalpa* (option) and *bādha* (annulment or contradiction). Those who hold the first view (*samuccaya*) say that a person can resort to the four āśramas one after another in order and that he cannot drop any one or more and pass on to the next nor can he resort to the householder's life after becoming a saṁnyāsin (vide Dakṣa I. 8-9, Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 40) e. g. a man cannot take saṁnyāsa immediately after brahmacarya. Manu (IV. 1, VI. 1. 33-37, 87-88) is the prime supporter of this view. The first part of the Jābālopaniṣad quoted above refers to this view. This view does not regard marriage and sexual life as impure or inferior to asceticism and on the contrary places it on a higher plane than asceticism. On the whole the tendency of most of the dharmaśāstra works is to glorify the status of an house-holder and push into the background the two āśramas of vānaprastha and saṁnyāsa, so much so that certain works say that these are forbidden in the Kali age. The second view is that there is an option after brahmacarya i. e. a man may become a *parivrājaka* immediately after he finishes his study or immediately after the householder's way of life. This view is put forward by the Jābālopaniṣad as an alternative to the first view of *samuccaya*. This is the view also of Vasiṣṭha VII. 3, Laghu Viṣṇu III. 1, and Yāj. III. 56. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 9. 21. 7-8 and II. 9. 22. 7-8) seems to favour this view. The third view of *bādha* is held by the ancient dharma-sūtras of Gautama¹⁰⁰⁷ and Baudhāyana. They hold that there is really one āśrama viz. that of the householder (*brahmacarya* being only preparatory to it) and that the other āśramas are inferior to that of the householder. Vide Gautama (III. 1 and 35) where he first refers to the view about vikalpa (option) and emphatically says that there is only one āśrama. Manu VI. 89-90, III. 77-80, Vas. Dh. S. VIII. 14-17, Dakṣa II. 57-60, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 59. 29 and many others praise the āśrama of householder as the highest. Baud. Dh. S. (II. 6. 29 ff) says the same as Gautama and it relies¹⁰⁰⁸ upon the fact that the āśramas other than that of householder do not beget offspring and quotes Vedic passages viz. 'may we, O Agni, attain immortality through progeny' (Ṛg. V. 4. 10=Tai. S. I. 4. 46. 1) and 'a brāhmaṇa when born is born involved in three debts, viz. he owes brahmacarya to the sages, sacrifice to the gods, and progeny to pitṛs' (Tai. S. VI. 3. 10. 5). According to Brahmasūtra III. 4. 18 Jaimini held this view, while Bādarāyaṇa seems to have been of the opinion that all āśramas are enjoined (ibid. III. 4. 19-20). Those who hold this view (bādha) rely on such Vedic passages¹⁰⁰⁹ as 'one should offer agnihotra as long as life lasts' or 'indeed Agnihotra is a satra (sacrificial session) that lasts till one dies by old age' (Śat. Br. XII. 4. 1. 1), 'one should desire to live a hundred years performing religious acts' (Vāj. S. 40. 2), 'after bringing to the teacher wealth desired by him, do not cut off the thread of progeny' (Tai. Up. I. 11. 1). The Mit. on Yāj. III. 56 sets out these three views and says that each is supported by Vedic texts and one may follow any one of the three. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 9. 21. 2) held the view that whatever āśrama out of the four one followed, one attained happiness if one performed its duties according to the śāstra and after a lengthy discussion Āp. arrives at the conclusion that there is no distinction due to superiority among the four āśramas¹⁰¹⁰. There were some who thought that the householder's life was the rule and the other āśramas were for the blind and other incapable persons. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 56 refutes this view.