Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c12.s6.62

c12.s6.62

Therefore, the composition or constitution of the *Parishad* was quite in keeping with the gravity of the functions and responsibilities entrusted to it. Because it had to direct the life of the community, it was at once the most representative and authoritative body that the community could think of. The highest talent and character in the community were represented on this Committee. In the first place, there was an adequate representation of Vedic learning which was the fountain of all law. By this feature the *Parishad* is easily distinguished from the ordinary domestic school of the period presided over by an Āchārya who was normally an expert in only one of the Vedas. The *Parishad* included four experts in the four Vedas. Secondly, there were, in the words of Manu [xii, 106], those who could explore the Śruti and Smṛiti by modes of reasoning not repugnant to the Veda-lore. The "modes of reasoning" as mentioned here are, according to Medhātithi and Kullūka, the Mīmāṁsā of Jaimini to be distinguished from philosophical Schools like the Bauddhas, Nirgranthas, and Lokāyatikas, who deny the authority of the Vedas. Thirdly, there were those who were experts in what may be called the secular law, the Dharma and Gṛihya Sūtras, of which the different Schools were represented on the *Parishad*, whereas the ordinary school of an Āchārya was connected with one particular School of Sūtras determined by the particular Vedic Śākhā to which that Āchārya belonged. Fourthly, the *Parishad* represented the particular wisdom and the experience belonging to each of the three Orders or Āśramas, viz. the student, the householder, and the Vānaprastha or the ascetic, but not the hermit who had no concern for secular matters at all and would not pass through human habitations. The representation of the student community on such an authoritative body shows a degree of recognition of their special interests and status which is not allowed even in modern educational organizations professing advanced democratic ideals. As the commentator Govinda [on *Baudhāyana*, i, 1, 1, 8] points out, professed students are declared to be particularly holy in the *Dharmaskandhabrāhmaṇa*. The Brahmachārin was a "well of wisdom undefiled" by contact with the world, which a body like the *Parishad* could ill afford not to take advantage of. Besides there might crop up disputed points regarding the laws of studentship itself on which an actual student or Brahmachārin might throw much light from his fresh experience and place before the *Parishad* the student's point of view. Like the student, the householder by himself claimed a special representation, although, perhaps, except the student, and the ascetic members, the other eight members were all householders themselves. Similarly, the ripe wisdom and experience of one who passed from the householder's state to that of an ascetic detached from the world constituted a valuable asset which society had a right to utilize. The ascetic was a good judge of the doubtful points of law not only on account of his seniority and superior experience of life but also on account of his judicial temperament, disinterested attitude, and impartial outlook that are the natural characteristics of a man in the third āśrama of life no longer affected by its passions or problems.