Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v2.c4.s7.308

v2.c4.s7.308

4. Occupation and Caste.—The Greek authorities¹⁰⁵ and the evidence of the Jātakas¹⁰⁶ concur in showing it to have been the general rule that each caste was confined to its own occupations, but that the Brāhmaṇas did engage in many professions beside that of simple priest, while all castes gave members to the Śramaṇas, or homeless ascetics. The Jātakas¹⁰⁷ recognize the Brahmins as engaged in all sorts of occupations, as merchants, traders, agriculturists, and so forth. Matters are somewhat simpler in Vedic literature, where the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas appear as practically confined to their own professions of sacrifice and military or administrative functions. Ludwig¹⁰⁸ sees in Dīrghaśravas in the Rigveda¹⁰⁹ a Brahmin reduced by indigence to acting as a merchant, as allowed even later by the Sūtra literature; but this is not certain, though it is perfectly possible. More interesting is the question how far the Kṣatriyas practised the duties of priests; the evidence here is conflicting. The best known case is, of course, that of Viśvāmitra. In the Rigveda he appears merely as a priest who is attached to the court of Sudās, king of the Tṛtsus; but in the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa¹¹⁰ he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa¹¹¹ refers to Śunahśepa’s succeeding, through his adoption by Viśvāmitra, to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins and the lordship of the Jahnus. That in fact this tradition is correct seems most improbable, but it serves at least to illustrate the existence of seers of royal origin. Such figures appear more than once in the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa,¹¹² which knows the technical terms Rājanyaṛṣi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, ‘royal sage.’ The Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa¹¹³ says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann ṛṣir bhavati), and the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa¹¹⁴ applies the term Rājanya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Ārṣiṣeṇa, who acted as Purohita, according to the Rigveda,¹¹⁵ for Śantanu, was a prince, as Yāska¹¹⁶ says or implies he was.¹¹⁷ But this assumption seems to be only an error of Yāska’s. Since nothing in the Rigveda alludes to any relationship, it is impossible to accept Sieg’s view¹¹⁸ that the Rigveda recognizes the two as brothers, but presents the fact of a prince acting the part of Purohita as unusual and requiring explanation. The principle, however, thus accepted by Sieg as to princes in the Rigveda seems sound enough. Again, Muir¹¹⁹ has argued that Hindu tradition, as shown in Sāyaṇa,¹²⁰ regards many hymns of the Rigveda as composed by royal personages, but he admits that in many cases the ascription is wrong; it may be added that in the case of Pṛthī Vainya, where the hymn¹²¹ ascribed to him seems to be his, it is not shown in the hymn itself that he is other than a seer; the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa¹²² calls him a king, but that is probably of no more value than the later tradition as to Viśvāmitra. The case of Viśvantara and the Śyāparṇas mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa¹²³ has been cited¹²⁴ as that of a king sacrificing without priestly aid, but the interpretation is quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamṛgas, and Bhūtavīras mentioned in the course of the narrative renders it highly probable that the king had other priests to carry out the sacrifice.