History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c46.54

v3.c46.54

Both these opposing views are supported by the most famous authors. The first view that only brāhmaṇas can be sannyāsins is affirmed by the great Śaṁkarācārya in his bhāṣya on Bṛ. Up. III. 5. 1 and IV. 5. 15. It is most interesting and also very refreshing that Sureśvara²¹⁶¹ in his Vārtika on Śaṁkara's bhāṣya on Bṛ. Up. III. 5. 1 first explains the views of his guru, then enters the lists against his great master and combats his views with cogent arguments. Most of the medieval writers and works such as Medhātithi on Manu (VI. 97), the Mit., the Madanapārijāta (pp. 365-373), the Smṛtimuktāphala (Varṇāśrama p. 176) uphold the view that only brāhmaṇas can resort to the 4th āśrama, while a few works like the Smṛticandrikā (I. p. 65) support the second view. The position of Viśvarūpa²¹⁶² (on Yāj. III. 61) that only brāhmaṇas can resort to sannyāsa causes great perplexity. Sureśvara and Viśvarūpa are generally regarded as identical (vide H. D. vol. I. pp. 261-263 and Journal of the Andhra Historical Society for 1931, vol. V, p. 187). But Sureśvara holds the view that the word brāhmaṇa in the relevant texts is only illustrative. Therefore it follows that either Sureśvara changes his views or that Sureśvara and Viśvarūpa are not identical. Ānandagiri in his commentary on Sureśvara's Vārtika (p. 759) cites passages from the Mahābhārata (Ādi. 119) to establish that kṣatriyas could resort to sannyāsa.²¹⁶³ Śāntiparva (63. 16-21) allows sannyāsa to kings when their life is about to end. But the general words of Śānti 62. 2 appear to be in conflict with this.²¹⁶⁴ Kālidāsa states that Raghu became a *yati* when he grew old, installed his son on the throne and stayed in a cottage outside the capital and draws a very poetic and striking picture of the contrast between the old king turned ascetic and the prince become king (Raghu-vaṁśa VIII. 14 and 16).