Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India
______________________________________________
Contents
PART III
Chapter 8: The Morals of the
House
Chapter 9: Krishna and His Gita
Chapter 10: Analytical Notes of Virat Parva and Udyog Parva
Chapter 11: Brahmins Versus Kshatriyas
Chapter 12: Shudras and the Counter-Revolution
Chapter 13: The Woman and the
Counter-Revolution
The Morals of the House
This is 61 page typed manuscript. This is a second
copy hut it is having corrections and modifications by Dr. Ambedkar
himself. It is reproduced here taking all the corrections into account. There is one
separate file entitled 'Manu Smriti
or the Gospel of Counter-Revolution '. In that copy notes on Manu Smriti under various
categories have been drawn. However, all these notes have been found to be incorporated in
this essay, 'Morals of the House.'
It is felt that the printing of these notes would be a mere repetition of this essay.
Hence, the said copy is not separately printed:
I
The
morals of the Hindus and their religious creed are prescribed by the Smritis which form a
part of the Sacred literature of the Hindus. It is to the Smritis that one must go to
understand the Ethics and the Religion of the Hindus. The Smritis are by no means few in
number. A conservative estimate gives the total number of Smritis to be 108. The large
number of Smritis cannot however make our
problem difficult. For though the Smritis are numerous they do not differ in essentials.
Indeed they repeat one another so closely that reading the Smritis creates a most
monotonous task. They are all derived from one common source. That source is the Smriti of
Manu otherwise known as Manava Dharma
Shastra. The other Smritis are faithful repetitions of the
Manu Smriti. A study of the Manu Smriti is therefore quite sufficient to obtain an
adequate conception of the moral standards and Religious notions of the Hindus.
It
may be said that Manu Smriti—and the same is true of the other Smritis—-is a
Code of Laws. It is not a book of Ethics nor is it a book of Religion and to take a book
of Laws and to treat it as though it is a book of Ethics and Religion is to confound
Ethics, Religion and Law.
In
the first place it is only in modern times that Law has been separated from Religion. In
all ancient Society, Law and Religion were one. As Prof. Max Muller[f1]
points out that though :—
"Law seems naturally to be the foundation of society, and
the bond that binds a nation together. Those who look below the surface have quickly
perceived that law itself, at least ancient law, derives its authority, its force, its
very life from religion. . .
.. The belief that the lawgiver enjoyed some closer
intimacy with the Deity than ordinary mortals, pervades the ancient traditions of many
nations. According to a well known passage in Diodorus Siculus, the Egyptians believed their laws to have been
communicated to Menvis by Hermes; the Cretaus held that Minos received his laws from Zeus, the Lacedaemonians that Lykurgus received
his laws from Apollon. According to the Arians, their lawgiver Zarathustras
had received his Laws from the Good Spirit; According to
the Stoe, Zamolixis received
his laws from the goddess Hestia; and according to the
Jews, Moses received his laws from the God las. "
No
one has pointed out more forcibly than Sir Henry Mains[f2]
that in ancient times religion as a divine influence was underlying and supporting every
relation of life and every social institution when he says of Religion as :
"A
supernatural presidency (which) is supposed to consecrate and keep together all the
cardinal institutions of those times, the state, the Race, and the Family ".
From
this superntural presidency of Reigion,
Law had not succeded in
finding an escape until at a later time when law finally breaks
away from religion but not without leaving many traces to
show the link it had with Religion at the very beginning of
human history.
Again
it is only in modern times that a difference is being made between Religion and Ethics.
Religion and Ethics are inextricably and indissolubly bound together. Morality and Ethics are
essentially practical. As Prof. Jacks insists[f3]
that
the problem of Ethics is not merely getting the Good understood but realised, not merely getting the Right placed on scientific
basis but done. Morality is a mere matter of defining what is good and what is right. Prof.
Jacks: rightly says :
"Whenver
we embark on the study of morality without interest in its application I cannot but think that it is not morality we are studying. Morality does not
arise till the point of application is reached. The effect of a moral theory launched upon
the world is next to nothing unless the application of it can be reinforced by powerful
motives. The good life, as Aristotle pointed out is a very difficult affair; difficult
even when it goes no further than conformity to existing conventions. But when the good
life demands that existing standards must be transcended how can this be effected without
an immense liberation of power? Mere information as to why men should do right has no
effect against their natural tendencies to do wrong-it is no match for the difficulties
that beset good life. "
Unless
some motive force comes to its aid morality remains inert. There can be no doubt that what
gives motive force to morality is Religion. It is a propelling force which creates, to use
again the language of Principal Jacks :
"Motives
which are strong enough to overcome the enormous difficulties involved in living the good
life, even in its simpler forms, and adequate to maintain that continuous improvement of
the moral ideal."
Religion
as a motive force reinforces the moral will in various ways. Sometimes it takes the form
of sanctions by laying down a scheme of rewards and punishments after death; some times it
makes rules of morality as the commandments of God; some times it invests these rules with
sanctity which evokes willing obedience. But these are only different ways in which motive
power generated by Religion helps to sustain moral life in action. Religion is the
dynamics which moves the wheels of morality.
If
Ethics and Morality are duties then there can be no doubt that Manu
Smriti is a book of Ethics. Any one who takes the trouble
to read the Smriti of Manu will have to admit that if there is any subject which figures
prominently in the book it is that of duties. Manu was the first to syatematise and codify the duties to which a Hindu was bound. He distinguishes between Varnashramadharmas and
Sadharandharmas.
The Varnashramdharmas are
the specific duties relating to one's station in life i.e. one's station as determined by
one's Varna or caste and one's Ashram or particular stage
of life. The Sadharandharmas are duties irrespective of one's age, caste or creed i.e.
duties obligatory on man as man and not as a member of a particular community or social
class or as being at a particular stage or period of life. The whole book deals with
duties and with nothing else.
Manu
Smriti is thus a book of Law, Religion and Ethics rolled into one. It is Ethics because it
deals with duties of men. It is religion because it deals with Caste which is the soul of
Hinduism. It is Law because it prescribes penalties for
breach of duties. In this view there is nothing wrong in going to Manu Smriti to ascertain the
moral standards and religious notions of the Hindus.
That
Manu Smriti is a book of Religion may not be quite obvious. That is because Hinduism is a
very illusive term. Different writers have defined it in various ways. Sir D. lbbetson[f4]
defines Hinduism as :
"A
hereditary sacerdotalism with Brahmins for its devices, the vitality of which is preserved by the social institution
of caste and which include all shades and diversities of religion native to India, as
distinct from foreign importations of Christianity and Islam, and from the later
outgrowths of Buddhism, more doubtfully of Sikhism and
still more doubtfully of Jainism ".
Sir J. A. Baines[f5]
defined
Hinduism as :—
"The
large residium that is not Sikh, or Jain, or Buddhist or professedly Animistic,
or included in one of the foreign religions such as Islam, Mazdaism,
Christianity, or Hebraism." To Sir Edward Gait[f6]
Hinduism :—
"is a complex congenies
of creeds and doctrines. It shelters within its portals monotheists,
polytheists, and pantheists; Worshippers of the great God
Siva and Vishnu, or of their female counterparts, as well as worshippers of the divine
mothers, of the spirits of trees,rocks and streams and of the tutelary
village deities; persons who propitate their deity by all
matter of bloody sacrifices, and persons who will not only kill no living creature, but
who must not even use the word "cut"; those whose
ritual consists mainly of prayers and hymns, and those who indulge in unspeakable orgies
in the name of religion".
This
discription of complexity is full but is still incomplete.
To the list must be added those who revere the cow and those who eat it, those who worship
natural forces, and those who worship a single God; those who are worshippers of idols,
demons, ghosts, ancestors, saints and heroes.
Such
are the answers given by the three Census Commissioners to
the simple question what is Hinduism. Others have not found it less difficult to answer
the question. Consider how Sir A. Lyall has fared in
answering the question. In his "Rede Lecture" delivered at Cambridge in 1891 he said[f7]:
"And
if I were asked for a definition of Hinduism I could give no precise answer, I could not
define it concisely by giving its central doctrines and its essential articles of faith; as I might do in describing of the great historical
Religions. For the word Hindu is not exclusively a religious denomination; it denotes also
a country, and to certain degree a race. When we speak of Christian, a Mahomedan, or a Buddhist, we
mean a particular religious community, in the widest sense,
without distinction of race or place. When we talk of a Russian or a Persian, we indicate
country or parentage without distinction of creed. But when a person tells me that he is a
Hindu, I know that he means all three things together— Religion. Parentage and
Country." Speaking of Hinduism as a Religion Sir
Alfred Lyall said that:
"Hindism
was a tangled mugle of disorderly superstitions, the
collection of rights, worships, beliefs, traditions and mythologies, that are sanctioned
by the sacred books and ordinances of the Brahmins and are propogated
by Brahmanic teachings." Lastly
I will quote the defintion given by a Hindu Mr. G. P. Sen who not merely a
Hindu but is a student of Hinduism. In his book called 'Introduction
to the study of Hinduism' Mr. Sen says :—
"Hinduism
is what the Hindus, or a major portion of them in a Hindu Community do."
Is
there then no principle in Hinduism which all Hindus no matter what their other
differences are, feel bound to render willing obedience? It seems to me there is and that
principle is the principle of Caste. There may be a difference of opinion as to which
matters constitute matters of essence so far as Hinduism is concerned. But there can be no
doubt that Caste is one and an essential and integral part of Hinduism. Every
Hindu—if he is not merely a statutory Hindu-believes in Caste and every Hindu-even
one who prides himself on being a statutory Hindu—has a Caste. A Hindu is as much
born into caste as he is born in Hinduism. Indeed a person connot
be born in Hinduism unless he is born in a Caste. Caste and Hinduism are inseparable. As Prof. Max Muller[f8]
observes :
"Modern
Hinduism rests on the system of Caste as on a rock which no arguments can shake."
It
therefore follows that in so far as Manu lays down the
creed of the Caste and in so far as Hinduism at its core is the creed of Caste the Manu Smriti must be accepted as the Book of Religion.
II
What
are the Ethical and Religious norms prescribed by Manu for Hindus to observe and follow?
To
begin with, Manu divides Hindus into four varnas or social orders. He not only divides Hindus into four
orders he also grades them. The dollowing is his scheme of
gradation.
X.
3. On account of his pre-eminence, on account of the superiority of his origin, on account
of his observance of(particular) restrictive rules, and on account of his particular sanctification the Brahman is
the Lord of (all) Varnas.
He
procceds to amplify his reasons and does so in the following characteristic manner :—
1.
93. As the Brahmana sprang from (Prajapati's
i.e.Gods) mouth, as he was first-born, and as he possesses the Veda, he is by right the
lord of this whole creation.
1.
94. For the self existent (Svayambhu i.e. God), having
performed austerities, produced him first from his own mouth, in order that the offerings
might be conveyed to the Gods and Manes and that this universe might be preserved.
1.
95. What created being can surpass him, through whose mouth the Gods continually consume
the sacrificial viands and the manes the offerings to the dead.
1.
96. Of created beings the most excellent are said to be those which are animated; of the
animated, those who subsist by intelligence: of the inteligent,
mankind; and of the men, the Brahmans.
Besides
the reason given by Manu the Brahmin is first in rank because he was produced by God from
his mouth, in order that the offerings might be conveyed to the Gods and manes. Manu gives
another reason for the supremacy of the Brahmins. He says :—
1.
98. The very birth of a Brahmana is an eternal incarnation of the sacred Law (Veda); for
he is born to (fulfil) the sacred law, and become one with Brahman (God).
1.
99. A Brahamana, coming into existence, is born as the
highest on earth, the lord of all created beings, for the protection of the treasury of
the Law. Manu concludes by saying that :
1.
101. The Brahmana eats but his own food, wears but his own apparel, bestows but his own alms; other mortals subsist through the benevolence of the Brahmana."
Because according to Manu :
1.
100. Whatever exists in the world is the property of the
Brahmana; on account of the excellence of his origin the Brahmana is, indeed, entitled to
it all.
It
is really an understatement to say that according to Manu
the Brahman is a lord of all creation. For Manu gives a
warning to the effect that :-
IX.
317. A Brahmana, be he ignorant or learned, is a great
divinity, just as the fire, whether carried forth (for the
performance of a burnt oblation) or not carried forth, is a great divinity.
IX.
319. Thus, though the Brahmans employ themselves in all (sorts) of mean occupations, they must be
honoured in every way; (for each of) them is a very great deity.
Being
a deity the Brahmin is above law and above the King. Manu directs
:-
VII.
37. Let the King, after rising early in the morning, worship Brahmans who are well versed
in the threefold sacred science and learned (in polity), and follow their advice VII. 38.
Let him daily worship aged Brahmans who know the Veda and are pure...... Finally Manu says :
XI.
35. The Brahman is (hereby) declared (to be) the creator (of the world),
the punisher, the teacher, (and hence) a benefactor (of all
created beings); to him let no man say anything unpropitions,
nor use any harsh words.
In
the Code of Manu there are rules regarding the different occupations which the different
orders are required to follow:
I. 88. To Brahmens
he (Swayambhu Manu) assigned the duties of reading the
Veda, of teaching it, of sacrificing, of assisting others to sacrifice, of giving alms, if
they the rich, and if indiquent, of receiving of gifts.
I. 89. To defend the people, to give alms, to sacrifice,
to read the Veda, to shun the allurements of sensual gratifiction,
are, in a few words, the duties of a Kshatriya.
I.
90. To keep herds of cattle, to bestow largeness, to sacrifice, to read the scriptures, to
carry on trade, to lend at interest, and to cultivate land are prescribed or permitted to
a Vaisya.
1.
91. One principal duty the supreme Ruler assigns to a Sudra; namely,
to serve the before mentioned classes, without depreciating their worth.
X.
74. Let such Brahmans as are intent on the means of attaining the supreme Godhead, and
firm in their own duties, completely perform, in order, the six following acts:
X.
75. Reading the Vedas, the teaching others to read them,
sacrificing, and assisting others, to sacrifice, giving to
the poor if themselves have enough, and accepting gifts from the virtuous if themselves
are poor, are the six prescribed acts of the first born class;
X.
76. But, among those six acts of a Brahmin, three are his means of susbsistence; assisting to sacrifice, teaching the Vedas, and receiving gifts from a pure handed giver.
X.
77. Three acts of duty cease with the Brahman, and belong
not to the Kshatriya; teaching the Vedas, officiating at a
sacrifice, and, thirdly, receiving presents.
X.
78. Those three are also (by the fixed rule of law) forbidden to the Vaisya; since Manu, the Lord of
all men, prescribed not those acts to the two classes, military and commercial.
X.
79. The means of subsistence, peculiar to the Kshatriya,
are bearing arms, either held for striking or missile, to the Vaisya, merchandize, attending on cattle, and agriculture but with a
view to the next life, the duties of both are almsgiving, reading, sacrificing." Besides prescribing rank
and occupation Manu grants privileges to certain orders and imposes penalties on certain
orders. As to privileges those relating to marriage may be referred to first. Manu says :
III.
12. For the first marriage of the twice born classes, a woman of the same class is
recommended but for such as are impelled by inclination to marry again, women in the
direct order of the classes are to be preferred :
III.
13. A Sudra woman only must be the wife of a Sudra; she and a Vaisya, of a Vaisya; they two and a
Kshatriya, of a Kshatriya; those three and a Brahmani of a
Brahman. Then there are privileges relating to occupations. These privileges stand out
quite prominently when Manu deals with the question as to what a person is to do when he
is in distress :
X.
81. Yet a Brahmen, unable to subsist by his duties just
mentioned, may live by the duty of a soldier; for that is the next in rank.
X.
82. If it be asked, how he must live, should he be unable to get a subsistence by either
of those employments; the answer is, he may subsist as a mercantile man, applying himself
in person to tillage and attendance on cattle.
X.
83. But a Brahman and a Kshatriya, obliged to subsist by the acts of a Vaisya, must avoid
with care, if they can live by keeping herds, the business of tillage, which gives great
pain to sentient creatures, and is dependent on the labour
of others, as bulls and so forth.
X.
84. Some are of opinion, that agriculture is excellent, but it is a mode of subsistence
which the benevolent greatly blame, for the iron mouthed pieces of wood not only wound the
earth, but the creatures dwelling in it.
85.
If through want of a virtuous livelihood, they cannot follow laudable occupations,they may then gain a competence of
wealth by selling commodities usually sold by merchants, avoiding what ought to be
avoided.
X.
86. They must avoid selling liquids of all sorts, dressed grain, seeds of tila, stones, salt, cattle, and human creatures.
X.
87. All woven cloth dyed red, cloth made of sana, of cshuma-bark, and of wool, even
though not red; fruit, roots, and medicinal plants.
X.
88. Water, iron, poison, flesh-meat, the moon-plant, and perfumes of any sort; milk,
honey, butter milk, clarified butter, oil of tila, wax sugar, and blades of cusa grass;
X.
89. All beasts of the forest, as deer and the like, ravenous beasts, birds, and fish;
spirituous liquors, nili, or indigo, and lascha, or lac; and all beasts with uncloven hoofs.
X.
90. But the brahmen-husbandman may at pleasure sell pure tila-seeds for the purpose of holy rites, if he keep them not
long with a hope of more gain, and shall have produced them by his own culture.;
X.
91. If he apply seeds of tila to any purpose but food, anoiting,
and sacred oblations, he shall be plunged, in the shape of a worm, together with his
parents, into the ordure of dogs.
X.
92. By selling flesh-meat, lac or salt, a Brahmen
immediately sinks low; by selling milk three days, he falls to a level with a Sudra.
X.
93. And by selling the other forbidden commodities with his own free will, he assumes in
this world, after seven nights, the nature of a mere Vaisya.
X.
94. Fluid things may, however, be bartered for other fluids, but not salt for anything
liquid; so may dressed grain for grain undressed, and tila-seeds for grain in the husk,
equal weights or measures being given and taken.
X.
102. The Brahmen having fallen into distress, may receive gifts from any person whatever;
for by no sacred rule can it be shown, that absolute purity can be sullied.
X.
103. From interpreting the Veda, from officiating at sacrifices, or from taking presents,
though in modes generally disapproved, no sin is committed
by priests in distress; lor they are as pure as fire or water.
Compare
with this what Manu has to say with regard, to what the other Varnas can do in an
emergency, Manu says :
X.
96. A man of lowest class, who, through covetousness, lives
by the acts of the highest, let the king strip of all his wealth and instantly banish.
X.
97. His own office, though defectively performed, is preferable to that of another, though
performed completely; for he, who without necessity discharges the duties of another
class, immediately forfeits his own.
X.
98. A mercantile man, unable to subsist by his own duties, may descend even to the servile
acts of a Sudra, taking care never to do what ought never
to be done; but, when he has gained a competence, let him depart from service.
X.
99. A man of fourth class, not finding employment by waiting on the twice born, while his
wife and son are tormented with hunger, may subsist by
handicrafts.
X.
121. If a Sudra want a subsistence and cannot attend priest, he may serve a Kshatriya; or, if he cannot wait on a soldier by birth, he may
gain his livelihood by serving an opulent Vaisya.
X.
122. To him, who serves Brahmens, with a view to a heavenly
reward, or even with view to both this life and the next, the union of the word Brahmen with his name of servant will assuredly bring success.
X.
123. Attendance on Brahmens is pronounced the best work of Sudra; whatever else he may
perform will comparatively avail him nothing.
X.
124. They must allot him a fit maintenance according to their own circumstances, after
considering his ability, his exertions, and the number of those, whom he must provide with
nourishment.
X.
125. What remains of their dressed rice must be given to him, and apparel which they have
worn, and the refuse of their grain, and their old household furniture.
X.
126. There is no guilt in a man of the servile class who eats leeks and other forbidden
vegetables; he must not have the sacred investiture; he has no business with the duty of
making oblations to fire and the like, but there is no prohibition against his offering
dressed grain as a sacrifice, by way of discharging his own duty.
X.
127. Even Sudras, who were anxious to perform their entire
duty, and, knowing what they should perform, imitate the practice of good men in the
household sacraments, but without any holy text, except those containing praise and
salutations, are so far from sinning, that they acquire just applause.
X.
128. As a Sudra, without injuring another man, performs the lawful acts of the twice-born,
even thus, without being censured, he gains exaltation in this world and in the next.
X.
129. No superfluous collection of wealth must be made by a Sudra, even though he has power
to make it, since a servile man,
who
has amassed riches, becomes proud, and, by his insolence or neglect, gives pain even to Brahmens. He concludes :—
X.
130. Such, as have been fully declared, are the several duties of the four classes in
distress for subsistence, and, if they perform them exactly, they shall attain the highest
beatitude. The privileges to some were not merely social they were also financial, Says Manu :—
VIII.
35. From the man, who shall say with truth, 'This property,
which has been kept, belongs to me', the king may take a sixth or twelfth
part, for having secured it.
VIII.
36. But he, who shall say so falsely, may be fined either an eighth part of his own
property, or else in some small proportion to the value of the goods falsely claimed, a
just calcultion having been made.
VIII.
37. A learned Brahmen, having found a treasure formerly
hidden, may take it without any deduction; since he is the lord of all.
VIII.
38. But of a treasure anciently deposited under ground, which any other subject or the
king has discovered, the king may lay up half in his treasury having given half to the
Brahmens.
IX.
323. Should the king be near his end through some incurable disease, he must bestow on the
priests all his riches, accumulated his kingdom to his son, let him seek death in battle,
or if there be no war, by abstaining from food.
VII.
127. Having ascertained the rates of purchase and sale, the length of the way, the
expenses of food and of condiments the charges of securing the goods carried, and the net
profits of trade, let the king oblige traders to pay taxes on their saleable commodities.
VII.
128. After full consideration, let a king so levy those taxes continually in his
dominions, that both he and the merchant may receive a just compensation for their several
acts.
VII.
129. As the leech, the suckling calf, and the bee, take their natural food by little and
little, thus must a king draw from his dominions an annual revenue.
VII.
130. Of cattle, of gems, of gold and silver, added each year to the capital stock, a
fiftieth part may be taken by the king; of grain, an eighth part, a sixth, or a twelfth,
according to the difference of the soil, and the labour necessary to cultivate it. VII. 131. He may also take a sixth part of the clear
annual increase of trees, fleshmeat, honey, clarified
butter, perfumes, medical substances, liquids, flowers, roots, and fruit.
VII.
132. Of gathered leaves, pot-herbs, grass, utencils made
with leather or cane, earthen pots, and all things made of stone.
VII.
132. A king, even though dying with want, must not receive any tax from a Brahman learned in the Vedas,
nor suffer such a Brahmen, residing in his territories, to
be afflicted with hunger.
VII.
134. Of that king, in whose dominion a learned Brahmen is afflicted with hunger, the whole
kingdom will in a short time be afflicted with famine.
VII.
137. Let the king order a mere trifle to be paid, in the name of the annual tax, by the
meaner inhabitants of his realm, who subsist by petty traffic.
VII.
138. By low handicraftsmen, artificers, and servile men, who support themselves by labour,
the king may cause work to be done for a day in each month.
VIII.
394. Neither a blind man, nor an idiot, nor a cripple, nor a man full seventy years old,
nor one who confers great benefits on priests of eminent learning, shall be compelled by
any king to pay taxes.
X.
118. A military king, who takes even a fourth part of the crops of his realm at a time of
urgent necessity, as of war or invasion, and protects his
people to the utmost of his power, commits no sin :
X.
119. His peculiar duty is conquest, and he must not recede from battle; so that, while he
defends by his arms the merchant and husbandman, he may levy the legal tax as the price of
protection.
X.
120. The tax on the mercantile class, which in times of prosperity must be only a twelfth
part of their crops, and a fiftieth of their personal profits, may be an eighth of their
crops in a time of distress, or a sixth, which is the medium, or even a fourth in great
public adversity ; but a twentieth of their gains on money,
and other moveables, is the highest tax ; serving men, artisans, and mechanics. must assist by their
labour, but at no time pay taxes.
X.
187. To the nearest sapinda, male or female, after him in
the third degree, the inheritance next belongs ; then, on
failure of sapindas and of their issue the samanodaca, or distant kinsman, shall be the heir ; or the
spiritual preceptor, or the pupil, or the fellow student, of the deceased.
IX.
188. On failure of all those, the lawful heirs are such Brahmens,
as have read the three Vedas, as are pure in body and mind, as have subdued their passions
; and they must consequently offer the cake; thus the rites of obsequies cannot fail.
IX.
189. The property of a Brahmen shall never be taken as an
escheat by the king; this is a fixed law; but the wealth of the other classes, on failure
of all heirs, the king may take. The terms on which the different social orders should
carry on their associated life has been defined by Manu in
a set of rules which form a very important part of the morals of the Hindu House. Manu
ordains that :
X.
3. From priority of birth, from superiority of origin, from a more exact knowledge of
scripture, and from a distinction in the sacrificial
thread, the Brahmen is the lord of all classes.
IX.
317. A Brahmen, whether learned or ignorant, is a powerful divinity ; even as fire is powerful divinity, whether consecrated or
popular.
IX.
319. Thus, although Brahmens employ themselves in all sorts
of mean occupations, they must invariably be honoured ; for
they are something transcendently divine.
VII.
35. A king was created as the protector of all those classes and orders, who, from the
first to the last, discharge their several duties.
VII.
36. And all, that must be done by him, for the protection of his people, with the
assistance of good ministers, I will declare to you, as the
law directs, in due order.
VII.
37. Let the king, having risen at early dawn, respectfully attend to Brahmen, learned in
the three Vedas, and in the science of ethics, and by their
decision let him abide.
VII.
38. Constantly must he show respect to Brahmens, who have grown old, both in years and in
piety, who know the scriptures, who in body and mind are pure ;
for he, who honours the aged, will perpetually be honoured
even by cruel demons :
IX.
313. Let him not, although in the greatest distress for money, provoke Brahmens to anger
by taking their prosperty ;
for they, once enraged, could immediately by sacrifices and imprecations destroy him with
his troops, elephants, horses and cars.
Such
was to be the relationship in the field of political life. For ordinary social intercourse
between the different Varnas Manu lays down the following
rules :—
III.
68. A house-keeper has five places of slaughter, or where small living creatures may be
slain ; his kitchen-hearth, his grindstone, his broom, his
pestle and mortar, his water-pot ; by using which, he
becomes in bondage to sin :
III.
69. For the sake of expiating offences committed ignorantly in
those places mentioned in order, the five great sacraments were appointed by eminent sages
to be performed each day by such as keep house.
III.
70. Teaching and studying the scripture is the sacrament of the Veda ; offering cakes and water, the sacrament of the Manes, an
oblation to fire, the sacrament of the Deities ; giving
rice or other food to living creatures, the sacrament of spirits ; receiving guests with honour, the sacrament of men.
III.
71. Whoever omits not those five great ceremonies, if he have ability to perform them, is
untainted by the sons of the five slaughtering places, even though he constantly reside at
home ;
111.84.
In his domestic fire for dressing the food of all the Gods, after the prescribed ceremony,
let a Brahmen make an oblation each day to these following
divinities. After it is offered to the deities Manu directs
:—
III.
92. The share of dogs, of outcasts, of dog-feeders, of sinful men, punished with
elephantiasis or consumption, of crows, and of reptiles, let him drop on the ground by
little and little. With regard to the rules of hospitality Manu directs the householder:
III.
102. A Brahmen, staying but one night as a guest, is called an atithi,
since continuing so short a time, he is not even a sojourner for
a whole tithi, or day of the moon.
III.
98. But an offering in the fire of a sacerdotal mouth, which richly blazes with true
knowledge and piety, will release the giver from distress and even from deadly sin.
III.
107. To the highest guests in the best form, to the lowest in the worst, to the equal
equally, let him offer seats, resting places, couches; giving them proportionable
attendance when they depart; and honour, as long as they stay.
III.
110. A military man is not denominated a guest in the house of a Brahman; nor a man of the commercial or servile class ; nor his familiar friend, nor his paternal kinsmen ; nor his preceptor.
III.
111. But if a warrior come to his house in the form of a guest, let food be prepared for
him, according to his desire, after the beforementioned Brahmens have eaten.
III.
112. Even to a merchant or a labourer, approaching his house in the manner of guests, let
him give food, showing marks of benevolence at the same
time with his domestics. On social bearing of one class towards another Manu has laid down
some very interesting ordinances. He has an equation for social status :
II.
135. The student must consider a Brahmen, though but ten
years old, and a Kshatriya, though aged a hundred years, as
father and son ; as between those two, the young Brahmen is
to be respected as the father.
II.
136. Wealth, kindred, age, moral conduct, and, fifthly divine knowledge, entitle men to
respect ; but that which is last mentioned in order, is the
most respectable.
II.
137. Whatever man of the three highest classes possesses the most of those five, both in
number and degree that man is entitled to most respect ; even a Sudra,
if he have entered the tenth decade of his age.
II.
138. Way must be made for a man in a wheeled carriage, or above ninety years old, or
afflicted with disease, or carrying a burthen ; for a woman
; for a priest just returned from the mansion of his
preceptor; for a prince, and for a bridegroom.
II.
139. Among all those, if they be met at one time, the priest just returned home and the
prince are most to be honoured ; and of those two, the
priest just returned, should be treated with more respect than the prince.
As
illustrating the rules of social bearing a reference may be made to rules regarding
salutation:
II.
121. A youth who habitually greets and constantly reverses the aged, obtains an increase
of four things; life, knowledge, fame, strength.
II.
122. After the word of salutation, a Brahman must address
an elder; saying, "I am such an one," pronouncing his own name.
II.
123. If any persons, through ignorance of the Sanskrit language, understand not the import
of his name, to them should a learned man say, " It is
I "; and in that manner he should address all classes
of women.
II.
124. In the salutation he should pronounce, after his own name, the vocative particle `bhoh'; for the particle 'bhoh'
is held by the wise to have the same property with names fully expressed.
II.
125. A Brahmen should thus be saluted in return; "May'st
thou live long, excellent man", and at the end of his
name, the vowel and preceding consonant should be lengthened, with an acute accent, to
three syllabic moments or short vowels.
II.
126. That Brahmen, who knows not the form of returning a salutation, must not be saluted
by a man of learning; as a Shudra, even so is he.
II.
127. Let a learned man ask a priest, when he meets him, if his devotion prospers, a
warrior, if he is unhurt; a merchant, if his wealth is secure; and one of the servile
classes, if he enjoys good health; using respectively the words, cusalam, anamayam, ksheman and anarogyam.
The
provisions laid down by Manu in relation to Religion and
Religious Sacraments and Sacrifice are worthy of note.
The
ordinances of Manu relating to Sacraments and sacrifices are as follows :
III. 68. A house-keeper has five places of slaughter, or
where small living creatures may be slain; his kitchen-hearth, his grindstone, his broom,
his pastle and mortar, his water-pot; by using which, he
become in bondage to sin.
III.
69. For the sake of expiating offences committed ignorantly in
those places mentioned in order, the five great sacraments were appointed by eminent sages
to be performed each day by such as keep house.
III.
70. Teaching and studying the scriptures is the sacrament of the Veda; offering cakes and
water, the sacrament of the Manes, an oblation to fire, the sacrament of the Deities;
giving rice or other food to living creatures, the sacraments of spirits; receiving guests
with honour, the sacrament of men.
III.
71. Whoever omits not those five great ceremonies, if he have ability to perform them, is
untainted by the sons of the five slaughtering places, even though he constantly reside at
home. Manu then proceeds to lay down that all are not entitled to the benefit of the
sacraments and all have not the same right to perform the sacrifices.
He
defines the position of women and Shudras in the matter of
Sacraments and sacrifices. As to women Manu says :—
II.
66. The same ceremonies, except that of the sacrificial thread, must be duly performed for
women at the same age and in the same order, that the body may be made perfect; but
without any text from the Veda." As to Shudras, Manu
says:—
X.
127. Even Shudras, who were anxious to perform their entire duty, and, knowing what they
should perform initate the practice of good men in the
household sacraments, but without any holy text, except those containing praise and
salutation, are so far from sinning, that they acquire just applause.
The
investiture of a person with the sacred thread is a very important sacrament.
II.
36. In the eighth year from the conception of a Brahman.,
in the eleventh from that of a Kshatriya, and in the
twelfth from that of a Vaisya, let the father invest the
child with the mark of his class.
II. 37. Should a Brahman,
or his father for him, be desirous of his advancement in sacred knowledge; a Kshatriya, of extending his power; or a Vaisya of engaging in mercantile business; the investiture may
be made in the fifth, sixth, or eighth years respectively.
II.
38. The ceremony of investiture hallowed by the Gayatri must
not be delayed, in the case of a priest, beyond the sixteenth year; nor in that of a
soldier, beyond the twenty second; nor in that of a merchant, beyond the twenty fourth.
II.
39. After that, all youths of these three classes, who have not been invested at the
proper time, become vratyas, or outcasts, degraded from the
Gayatri, and condemned by the virtuous. As to the Gayatri
it is a mantra
and this is how Manu explains its importance :—
II.
76. Brahma milked out, as it were, from the three Vedas,
the letter A, the letter U, and the letter M which form by their coalition the triliteral
monosyllable, together with three mysterious words bhur, bhuvah, svah or earth, sky,
heaven.
II.
77. From the three Vedas, also, the Lord of creatures, incomprehensibly exalted,
successively milked out the three measures of that ineffable text,beginning with the word
tad, and entitled Savitri or Gayatri.
II. 78. A priest who shall know the Veda, and shall
pronounce to himself, both morning and evening, that syllable, and that holy text preceded
by the three words, shall attain the sanctity which the Veda confers :
II.
79. And a twice born man, who shall a thousand times repeat those three (om, the vyahritis, and the
gayatri), apart from the multitude, shall be released in a month even from a great
offence, as a snake from his slough.
II.
80. The priest, the soldier, and the merchant, who shall neglect this mysterious text, and
fail to perform in due season his peculiar acts of piety, shall meet with contempt among
the virtuous.
II.
81. The great immutable words, preceded by the triliteral syllable, and followed by the
gayatri which consists of three measures, must be considered as the mouth, or principal
part of the Veda;
II.
82. Whoever shall repeat, day by day, for three years, without negligence, that sacred
text, shall hereafter approach the divine essence, move as freely as air, and assume an
ethereal form. II. 83. The triliteral monosyllable is an emblem of the Supreme, the
suppressions of breath with a mind fixed on God are the highest devotion; but nothing is
more exalted than theGayatri;
a declaration of truth is more excellant than silence.
II.
84. All rites ordained in the Veda, oblations to fire, and solemn sacrifices pass away ; but that which passes not away, is declared to be the
syllable om, thence called acshara
; since it is a symbol of God, the Lord of created beings.
II.
85. The act of repeating his Holy Name is ten times better than the appointed sacrifice;
an hundred times better when it is heard by no man ; and a
thousand times better when it is purely mental.
II.
86. The four domestic sacraments which are accompanied with the appointed sacrifice, are
not equal though all be united, to a sixteenth part of the sacrifice performed by a
repetition of the gayatri. This investiture is equivalent
to a new birth.
II.
147. Let a man consider that as a mere human birth, which his parents gave him for their
mutual gratification, and which he receives after lying in the womb.
II.
148. But that birth which his principal acharya, who knows
the whole Veda, procures for him by his divine mother the gayatri, is a true birth ; that birth is exempt from age and from death.
II.
169. The first birth is from a natural mother: the second, from the ligation of the zone ; the
third from the due performance of the sacrifice ; such are the births of him who is
usually called twice-born, according to a text of the Veda.
II.
170. Among them his divine birth is that, which is distinguished by the ligation of the
zone, and sacrificial cord ; and in that birth the Gayatri is his mother, and the Acharya,
his father. This sacrament is not permitted by Manu to
Shudras and to women.
II.
103. But he who stands not repeating it in the morning and sits not repeating it in the
evening, must be precluded, like a Sudra, from every sacred
observance of the twice born class. Manu has not forgotten to mention rules relating to
education and learning. Manu has nothing to say about mass
education. He does not see the utility of it and he does not see the necessity of imposing
any obligation upon the king or the state. He was merely concerned with the learning of the sacred and Religious literature namely the Vedas.
Veda
must be learned from a preceptor and with his assent. No one can read and study the Vedas
by himself. He will be guilty of theft if he did it.
II.
116. He who shall acquire knowledge of the Veda without the assent of his preceptor,
incurs the guilt of stealing the scripture and shall sink to the region of torment. But
others cannot study at all.
IX.
18. Women have no business with the texts of the Veda; thus is the law fully settled ; having, therefore, no evidence of law, and no knowledge of
expiatory texts, sinful women must be as foul as falsehood itself; and this is a fixed
rule.
IV.
99. He must never read the Veda without accents and letters well pronounced ; nor even in the presence of Sudras
; nor, having begun to read it in the last watch of the
night, must he, though fatigued, sleep again.
This
prohibition applies to Vratyas
or outcasts from the three higher classes. For Manu says :
II.
40. With such impure men, let no Brahmen, even in distress
for subsistence, ever form a connexion in law, either by the study of the Veda, or by
affinity.
Teaching
Veda or performing of sacrifices for disqualified persons was prohibited by Manu.
IV.
205. Never let a priest eat part of a sacrifice not begun with texts of the Veda, nor of
one performed by a common sacrificer, by a woman, or by an
eunuch :
IV.
206. When those persons offer the clarified butter, it brings misfortune to good men, and
raises aversion in the deities, such oblations, therefore, he must carefully shun.
XI.
198. He, who has officiated at a sacrifice for outcasts, or burned the corpse of a
stranger, or performed rites to destroy the innocent, or made the impure sacrifice, called
Ahimsa, may expiate his guilt by three prajapatya penances. Take equality before Law.
When
they come as witnesses—according to Manu they are to be sworn as follows :
VIII.
87. In the forenoon let the judge, being purified, severally call on the twice-born, being
purified also, to declare the truth, in the presence of some image, a symbol of the
divinity, and of Brahmens, while the witnesses turn their
faces either to the north or to the east.
VIII.
88. To a Brahmen he must begin with saying, "Declare;"
to a Kshatriya, with saying, "
Declare the truth"; to a Vaisya,
with comparing perjury to the crime of stealing kine,
grain, or gold; to a Sudra, with comparing it in some or
all of the following sentences, to every crime that men can commit.
VIII.
1 13. Let the judge cause a priest to swear by his veracity ; a soldier, by his horse, or elephant, and his weapons; a merchant, by his kine, grain, and gold; a mechanic or servile man, by
imprecating on his own head, if he speak falsely, all possible crime; Manu also deals with cases of witnesses giving false evidence.
According to Manu giving false evidence is a crime. Says Manu:
VIII.
122. Learned men have specified these punishments, which were ordained by sage legislators
for perjured witnesses, with a view to prevent a failure of
justice and to restrain iniquity.
VIII.
123. Let a just prince banish men of the three lower classes, if they give false evidence having first levied the fine ; but a Brahmen let him only
banish." But Manu made one exception:
VIII.
1 12. To women, however, at a time of dalliance, or on a proposal of marriage, in the case of grass or fruit eaten by a cow, of wood taken
for a sacrifice, or of a promise made for the preservation of a Brahmen, it is deadly sin
to take a light oath. As parties to proceedings—Their position can be illustrated by
quoting the ordinances of Manu relating to a few of the importa.nt criminal offences dealt
with by Manu. Take the offence of Defamation. Manu says :
VIII.
267. A soldier, defaming a priest, shall be fined ahundred panas
a merchant, thus offending, an hundred and fifty, or two hundred : but, for such an offence, a mechanic or servile man shall be
whipped.
VIII.
268. A priest shall be fined fifty, if he slander a soldier; twenty five, if a merchant ; and twelve, if he slander a
man of the servile class. Take the offence of Insult—Manu says:
VIII.
270. A once-born man, who insults the twice-born with gross invectives, ought to have his
tongue slit ; for he sprang from the lowest part of Brahma.
VIII.
271. If he mention their names and classes with contumely as, if he say, "Oh Devadatta, thou refuse
of Brahmen", an iron style, ten fingers long, shall be
thrust red into his mouth.
VIII.
272. Should he, through pride, give instruction to priests concerning their duty, let the
king order some hot oil to be dropped into his mouth and his ear. Take the offence of
Abuse—Manu says:
VIII.
276. For mutual abuse by a priest and a soldier, this fine must be imposed by a learned
king; the lowest amercement on the priest, and the middle-most on the soldier.
VIII.
277. Such exactly, as before mentioned, must be the punishment for a merchant and a
mechanic, in respect of their several classes, except the slitting of the tongue; this is a fixed rule of punishment.
Take the offence of Assault—Manu propounds:
VIII.
279. With whatever member of a low-born man shall assault or hurt a superior, even that
member of his must be slit, or cut more or less in proportion to the injury; this an
ordinance of Manu.
VIII.
280. He who raises his hand or a staff against another, shall have his hand cut ; and he, who kicks another in wrath, shall have an incision
made in his foot. Take the offence of Arrogance—According to Manu :
VIII.
281. A man of the lowest class, who shall insolently place himself on the same seat with
one of the highest, shall either be banished with a mark on his hinder parts, or the king
shall cause a gash to be made on his buttock.
VIII.
282. Should he spit on him through pride, the king shall order both his lips to be gashed;
should he urine on him, his penis; should he break wind against him, his anus.
VIII.
283. If he seize the Brahmen by the locks, or by the feet,
or by the beard, or by the throat, or by the scrotum, let the king without hesitation
cause incisions to be made in his hands. Take the offence of Adultery. Says Manu:
VIII.
359. A man of the servile class, who commits actual adultery with the wife of a priest,
ought to suffer death ; the wives, indeed, of all the four
classes must ever be most especially guarded.
VIII.
366. A low man, who makes love to a damsel of high birth, ought to be punished corporally;
but he who addresses a maid of equal rank, shall give the nuptial present and marry her,
if her father please.
VIII.
374. A mechanic or servile man, having an adulterious connection
with a woman of a twice-born class, whether guarded at home or unguarded, shall thus be
punished ; if she was unguarded, he shall lose the part
offending, and his whole substance ; if guarded, and a
priestless, every thing, even his life.
VIII.
375. For adultery with a guarded priestess, a merchant shall forfeit all his wealth after
imprisonment for a year; a soldier shall be fined a
thousand panas, and be shaved with the urine of an ass.
VIII.
376. But, if a merchant or soldier commit adultery with a woman of the sacerdotal class,
whom her husband guards not at home, the king shall only fine the merchant five hundred,
and the soldier a thousand ;
VIII.
377. Both of them, however, if they commit that offence with a priestess not only guarded
but eminent for good qualities, shall be punished like men of the servile class, or be
burned in a fire of dry grass or reeds.
VIII.
382. If a merchant converse criminally with a guarded woman of the military, or a soldier
with one of the mercantile class, they both deserve the same punishment as in the case of
a priestess unguarded.
VIII.
383. But a Brahmen, who shall commit dultery with a guarded woman of those two classes, must be
fined a thousand panas ; and for the like offence with a
guarded woman of the servile class, the fine of a soldier or a merchant shall be also one
thousand.
VIII.
384. For adultery with a woman of the military class, if unguarded, the fine of a merchant
is five hundred ; but a soldier, for the converse of that
offence, must be shaved with urine, or pay the fine just mentioned.
VIII.
385. A priest shall pay five hundred panas if he connect himself criminally with an
unguarded woman of the military, commercial, or servile class, and a thousand, for such a
connexion with a woman of vile mixed breed.
Turning
to the system of punishment for offences Manu's Scheme
throws an interesting light on the subject. Consider the following ordinances :
VIII.
379. Ignominious tonsure is ordained, instead of capital punishment, for an adulterer of
the priestly class, where the punishment of other classes may extend to loss of life.
VIII.
380. Never shall the king slay a Brahmen, though convicted of all possible crimes: let him
banish the offender from his realm, but with all his
property secure, and his body unhurt.
XI.
127. For killing intentionally a virtuous man of the military class, the penance must a
fourth part of that ordained for killing a priest ; for
killing a Vaisya, only an eighth ;
for killing a Sudra, who had been constant in discharging
his duties, a sixteenth part.
XI.
128. But, if a Brahmen kill a Kshatriya without malice, he
must, after a full performance of his religious rites, give the priests one bull together with a thousand cows.
XI.
129. Or he may perform for three years the penance for slaying a Brahmen, mortifying his
organs of sensation and action, letting his hair grow long, and living remote from the
town, with the root of a tree for his mansion.
XI.
130. If he kill without malice a Vaisya,
who had a good moral character, he may perform the same penance for one year, or give the
priests a hundred cows and a bull.
XI.
131. For six months must he perform this whole penance, if without intention he kill a Sudra ; or he may give ten
white cows and a bull to the priests.
VIII.
381. No greater crime is known on earth than slaying a Brahmen
; and the king, therefore, must not even form in his mind
an idea of killing a priest.
VIII.
126. Let the king having considered and ascertained the frequency of a similar offence,
the place and time, the ability of the criminal to pay or suffer and the crime itself,
cause punishment to fall on those alone, who deserve it.
VIII.
124. Manu, son of the Self-existent, has named ten places
of punishment, which are appropriate to the three lower classes, but a Brahmen must depart
from the realm unhurt in any one f them.
VIII.
125. The part of generation, the belly, the tongue, the two hands, and, fifthly, the two
feet, the eye, the nose, both ears, the property, and, in a capital case, the whole body.
On the point of rights and duties relating to religious Sacraments and Sacrifices the
views of Manu are noteworthy :
II.
28. By studying the Veda, by religious observances, by oblations to fire, by the ceremony
of Traividya, by offering to the Gods and Manes, by the
procreation of children, by the five great sacraments, and by solemn sacrifices, this
human body is rendered fit for a divine state.
III.
69. For the sake of expiating offences committed ignorantly in
those places mentioned in order, the five great sacrements
were appointed by eminent sages to be performed each day by such as keep house.
III.
70. Teaching and studying the scripture is the sacrament of the Veda; offering cakes and
water, the sacrament of the Manes; an oblation to fire, the sacrament of the Deities ; giving rice or other food to living creatures, the sacrament
of spirits ; receiving guests with honour, the sacrament of
men.
III. 71. Whoever omits not those five great ceremonies, if
he have ability to perform them, is untained by the sins of
the five slaughtering places, even though he constantly reside at home. Such are the
ordinances of Manu. Laws are never complete enough to cover every point. There are always
moot questions. Manu was conscious of this and provides for such contingencies.
XII.
108. If it be asked, how the law shall be ascertained, when particular cases are not
comprised under any of the general rules, the answer is this :
"That which well instructed Brahmens
propound, shall be held incontestible law."
XII.
109. Well instructed Brahmens are they, who can adduce occular
proof from the scripture itself, having studied, as the law ordains, the Vedas and their extended branches, or Vedangas, Mimansa, Nyaya, Dharma, Shastra, Puranas.
XII.
113. Even the decision of one priest, if more cannot be assembled, who perfectly knows the
principles of the Vedas, must be considered as law of the highest authority ; not the opinion of myriads, who have no sacred knowledge.
The
Laws of Manu are eternal. Therefore there is no question of
considering how changes could be effected in them. The only question Manu had to consider
was the upholding and maintaining the system. Manu has laid
down several provisions with this purpose in view.
As
to the preservation of the Social Code, Manu has made it the duty of the King to uphold
and maintain:
VIII.
410. The king should order each man of the mercantile class to practice trade, or money
lending, or agriculture and attendance on cattle ; and each
man of the servile class to act in the service of the twice-born.
VIII.
418. With vigilant care should the king exert himself in compelling merchants and
mechanics to perform their respective duties ; for, when
such men swerve from their duty, they throw this world into confusion.
Failure
to maintain was made an offence in the King punishable at Law.
VIII.
335. Neither a father, nor a preceptor, nor a friend, nor a mother, nor a wife, nor a son,
nor a domestic priest must be left unpunished by the king, if they adhere not with
firmness to their duty.
VIII.
336. Where another man of lower birth would be fined one pana, the
king shall be fined a thousand, and he shall give the fine to the priests, or cast it into
the river, this is a sacred rule.
Failure
to uphold and maintain the system on the part of the king involved a forfeiture of his
right to rule. For Manu allows a right to rebel against such a King.
VIII.
348. The twice-born may take arms, when their duty is obstructed by force: and when, in
some evil time. a disaster has befallen the twice-born classes.
The
right of rebellion is given to the three higher classes and not to the Shudra. This is very natural. Because it is only the three
upper classes who would benefit by the maintenance of this system. But supposing the Kshatriyas joined the King in destroying the system what is to
be done? Manu gives the authority to the Brahmins to punish
all and particularly the Kshatriyas.
XI.
31. A priest, who well knows the laws, need not complain to the king of any grievious injury; since, even by his own power, he may
chastise those, who injure him.
XI.
32. His own power, which depends on himself alone, is mightier than the royal power, which
depends on other men ; by his own might, therefore, may a Brahman coerce his foes.
XI.
33. He may use, without hesitation, the powerful charms revealed to Atharvan, and by him to Angiras
; for speech is the weapon of a Brahmen
; with that he may destroy his oppressors.
IX.
320. Of a military man, who raises his arm violently on all occasions against the priestly
class, the priest himself shall be the chastiser; since the soldier originally proceeded from the
Brahmen." How can the Brahmins punish the Kshatriyas unless they can take arms? Manu
knows this and therefore allows the Brahmins to arm themselves to punish the Kshatriyas.
XII.
100. Command of armies, royal authority, power of inflicting punishment, and sovereign
dominion over all nations, he only well deserves, who perfectly understands the Veda Shastra. So intent is Manu on the maintenance of the system of Chaturvarna that he did not
hesitate to make this fundamental change in it. For to ask a Brahman to take up arms is a
fundamental change as compared with the rule that was prevalent before Manu. The
prohibition against Brahmin handling arms was very strict. In the Apastamba Dharma Sutras which
is prior to Manu the rule is laid down in the following terms :
1.10,
29,6. A Brahmin shall not take up a weapon in his hand though he be only desirous of
examining it." Successor of Manu—Baudhayana—improved
upon him, and laid down in his Code of Laws :
II.
24, 18. For the protection of the Cows, Brahmins, or in the case of the confusion of Varnas, Brahmins and Vaisyas
(also) should take up arms, out of consideration for the Dharma. and maintain the system
at any cost.
Essays on the Bhagwat Gita : Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution: Krishna and His Gita
The
first page of 'Essays on the
Bhagvat Gita' is autographed by Dr. Ambedkar. Next 42 pages consist of analytical notes on Virat Parva and Uddyog Parva including the table of contents on this subject.
The table of contents is printed in the schemes. This file
contains two typed copies of an essay
entitled 'Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution—Krishna and His Gita '. The last sentence of this
essay is left incomplete.
The total number of typed pages of this essay is 40 only.
The notes on Viral Parva & Udyog Parva are printed in the next chapters.—Editors.
What
is the place of the Bhagwat Gita in the literature of ancient India? Is it a gospel of the
Hindu Religion in the same way as the Bible is of the Christian Religion? The Hindus have
come to regard it as their gospel. If it is a gospel, what does it really teach? What is
the doctrine it stands for? The variety of answers given to this question by students
competent to speak on the subject is really bewildering. Bohtlingk [f9]says:
"
The Gita contains by the side of many high and beautiful thoughts, not only a few weak
points ; contradictions (which the commentators have tried
to pass over as excusable), repetitions, exaggerations, absurdities and loathsome points."'
"
Hopkins[f10]
speaks of the Bhagvat Gita as a charactaristic work of the
Hindu Literature in its sublimity as in its puerilities, in its logic as in its want of
it; ..... an ill-assorted cabinet of primitive philosophical opinions." In his
judgment:
"Despite
its occasional power and music exaltation, the Divine song
in its present state as a poetical production is unsatisfactory. The same thing is said
over again, and the contradictions in phraseology and in meaning are as numerous as the
repetitions, so that one is not surprised to find it described as "the wonderful song, which causes the hair to stand on
end."
"We have before us (in the Bhagvat
Gita) a Vishnuite revision
of a pantheistic poem."
"The
whole character of the poem in its design and execution is preponderatingly
theistic. A personal God Krishna stands forth in the form
of a human hero, expounds his doctrine, enjoins, above all things, on his listener, along
with the performance of his duties, loving faith in Him and self-surrender:...... And by the side of this God—(who is) delineated
as personally as possible, and who dominates the whole poem—stands out frequently the
impersonal neutral Brahman, the Absolute, as the highest
principle. At one time Krishna says that He is the sole Highest God who has created the
world and all beings and rules over it all ; at another
time, he expounds the Vedantic doctrine of Brahman and maya-the Cosmic Illusion, and expounds as the highest goal of
human being that he be freed from the World-Illusion and become Brahman. These two
doctrines—the theistic and the pantheistic—are
mixed up with each other, and follow each other, sometimes
quite unconnected and sometimes loosely connected. And it is not the case that the one is
represented as a lower, exoteric. (Text p. 9) and, (p. ) as the higher esoteric doctrine. It is
nowhere taught that the Theism is a preliminary step to the knowledge
of the reality or that it is its symbol, and that the
pantheism of the Vedanta is the (ultimate) reality itself ;
but the two beliefs are treated of almost throughout as though there was indeed no
difference between them, either verbal or real." Mr. Telang says :[f13]
"There
are several passages in the Gita which it is not very easy to reconcile with one another ;
and no attempt is made to harmonise them. Thus, for example, in stanza 16 of Chapter VI I,
Krishna divides his devotees into four classes, one of which consists of `men of knowledge', whom, Krishna says, he considers 'as
his own self'. It would probably be difficult to imagine any expression
which could indicate higher esteem. Yet in stanza 46 of chapter VI, we have it laid down,
that the devotee is superior not only to the mere performer of penances, but even to the
men of knowledge. The commentators betray their gnostic bias by interpreting 'men of knowledge' in this latter passage to mean those who
have acquired erudition in the Shastras and their
significations. This is not an interpretation to be necessarily rejected. But there is in
it a certain twisting of words, which, under the circumstances here, I am not inclined to
accept. And on the other hand, it must not be forgotten, that the implications fairly derivable from Chapter IV,
stanza 39 (pp. 62, 63), would seem to be rather than knowledge is superior to
devotion—is the higher stage to be reached by means of devotion as the stepping
stone. In another passage again at Gita, Chapter XII,
stanza 12, concentration is preferred to knowledge, which also seems to me to be irreconcileable with Chapter VII, stanza 16. Take still
another instance. At Gita, Chapter B stanza 15, it is said, that 'Lord
receives the sin or merit of none.' Yet at Chapter V,
stanza 24 Krishna calls himself the Lord and enjoyer,"
of all sacrifices and penances. How, it may be well asked, can the Supreme Being 'enjoy that which he does not even receive?' Once more at Chapter X, stanza 29, Krishna declares that 'none is hateful to me, none dear.'
And yet the remarkable verse at the close of Chapter XII seem to stand in pointblank contradiction to that declaration. There through a
most elaborate series of stanzas, the burden of Krishna's eloquent sermon is 'such a one is dear to me.' And
again in those fine verses, where Krishna winds up his Divine Law, he similarly tells Arjuna, that he, Arjuna, is 'dear' to Krishna. And Krishna
also speaks of that devotee as 'dear' to him, who may publish the mystery of the Gita among those who references Supreme Being.[f14]
And yet again, how are we to reconcile the same passage about none being 'hateful or dear' to Krishna,
with his own words at Chapter XVI, stanza 18 and following stanzas? The language used in
describing the 'demoniac'
people there mentioned is not remarkable for sweetness towards them, while Krishna says
positively, ' I hurl down such people into demoniac wombs,
whereby they go down into misery and the vilest condition.'
These persons are scarcely characterized with accuracy 'as
neither hateful nor dear' to Krishna. It seems to me, that
all these are real inconsistencies in the Gita, not such,
perhaps, as might not be explained away, but such, I think, as indicate a mind making
guesses at truth, as Professor Max Muller puts it, rather
than a mind elaborating a complete and organized system
of philosophy. There is not even a trace of consciousness on the part of the author that
these inconsistencies exist. And the contexts of the various pasages
indicate, in my judgment, that a half-truth is struck out here and another half-truth
there, with special reference to the special subject then under discussion; but no attempt
is made to organize the various half-truths which are apparently incompatible, into a symmeterical whole, where the apparent inconsistencies might
possibly vanish altogether in the higher synthesis."
These
are the views of what might be called modern scholars. Turning to the view of the orthodox
Pandits, we again find a variety of views. One view is that the Bhagvat
is not a sectarian book. it pays equal respect to the three ways of salvation (1) Karma marge or the path of works (2) Bhakti marga or the path of
devotion and (3) Jnana marga or the path of knowledge and
preaches the efficacy of all three as means of salvation. In support of their contention
that the Gita respects all the three ways of salvation and
accepts the efficacy of each one of them, the Pandits point
out that of the 18 Chapters of the Bhagvat Gita, Chapters I to 6 are devoted to the
preaching of the Jnana marga, Chapters 7 to 12 to the preaching of Karma marga and
Chapters 12 to 18 to the preaching of Bhakti marga and say that this equal distribution of
its Chapters shows that the Gita upholds all the three modes of salvation.
Quite
contrary to the view of the Pandits is the view of Shankaracharya
and Mr. Tilak, both of whom must be classed amongst
orthodox writers. Shankaracharya held the view that the Bhagvat Gita preached that the
Jnana marga was the only true way of salvation. Mr. Tilak[f15]
does not agree with the views of any of the other scholars. He repudiates the view that
the Gita is a bundle of inconsistencies. He does not agree with the Pandits who say that
the Bhagvat Gita recognizes all the three ways of salvation. Like Shankaracharya he
insists that the Bhagvat Gita has a definite doctrine to preach. But he differs from
Shankaracharya and holds that the Gita teaches Karma Yoga and not Jnana Yoga.
It
cannot but be a matter of great surprise to find such a variety of opinion as to the
message which the Bhagvat Gita preaches. One is forced to ask why there should be such
divergence of opinion among scholars? My answer to this question is that scholars have
gone on a false errand. They have gone on a search for the message of the Bhagvat Gita on
the assumption that it is a gospel as the Koran, the Bible or the Dhammapada is. In my opinion this assumption is quite a false
assumption. The Bhagvat Gita
is not a gospel and it can therefore have no message and it is futile to search for one.
The question will no doubt be asked : What is the Bhagvat Gita if it is not a gospel? My answer is that the Bhagvat Gita is neither a book of religion nor a treatise on
philosophy. What the Bhagvat Gita does is to defend certain
dogmas of religion on philosphic grounds. If on that
account anybody wants to call it a book of religion or a book of philosophy he may please
himself. But essentially it is neither. It uses philosophy to defend religion. My
opponents will not be satisfied with a bare statement of view. They would insist on my
proving my thesis by reference to specific instances. It is
not at all difficult. Indeed it is the easiest task.
The
first instance one comes across in reading the Bhagvat Gita
is the justification of war. Arjuna had declared himself
against the war, against killing people for the sake of property. Krishna offers a
philosophic defence of war and killing in war. This philosophic defence of war will be
found in Chapter II verses II to 28. The philosophic defence of war offered by the Bhagvat
Gita proceeds along two lines of argument. One line of
argument is that anyhow the world is perishable and man is mortal. Things are bound to
come to an end. Man is bound to die. Why should it make any difference to the wise whether
man dies a natural death or whether he is done to death as a result of violence? Life is
unreal, why shed tears because it has ceased to be? Death is inevitable, why bother how if has resulted ? The second
line of argument in justification of war is that it is a mistake to think that the body
and the soul are one. They are separate. Not only are the two quite distinct but they
differ in-as-much as the body is perishable while the soul
is eternal and imperishable. When death occurs it is the body that dies. The soul never
dies. Not only does it never die but air cannot dry it, fire
cannot burn it, and a weapon cannot cut it. It is therefore wrong to say that when a man
is killed his soul is killed. What happens is that his body dies. His soul discards the
dead body as a person discards his old clothes—wears a new ones and carries on. As
the soul is never killed, killing a person can never be a matter of any movement. War and
killing need therefore give no ground to remorse or to shame, so argues the Bhagvat Gita.
Another
dogma to which the Bhagvat Gita comes forward to offer a
philosophic defence is Chaturvarnya. The Bhagvat Gita, no doubt, mentions that the Chaturvarnya is created by
God and therefore sacrosanct. But it does not make its validity dependent on it. It offers
a philosophic basis to the theory of Chaturvarnya by linking it to the theory of innate,
inborn qualities in men. The fixing of the Varna of man
is not an arbitrary act says the Bhagvat Gita. But it is fixed according to his innate, inborn
qualities.[f16]
The
third dogma for which the Bhagvat Gita offers a philosphic defence
is the Karma marga. By Karma marga the Bhagvat Gita
means the performance of the observances, such as Yajnas as
a way to salvation. The Bhagvat Gita most stands out for the Karma marga throughout and is
a great upholder of it. The line it takes to defend Karma yoga is by removing the
excrescences which had grown upon it and which had made it appear quite ugly. The first
excrescence was blind faith. The Gita tries to remove it by introducing the principle of Buddhi yoga[f17]
as
a necessary condition for Karma yoga. Become Stihtaprajna
i.e., 'Befitted with Buddhi'
there is nothing wrong in the performance of Karma kanda.
The second excrescence on the Karma kanda was the
selfishness which was the motive behind the performance of the Karmas.
The Bhagvat Gita attempts to remove it by introducing the principle of Anasakti i.e.,
performance of karma without any attachment for the fruits
of the Karma. [f18]Founded
in Buddhi yoga and dissociated from selfish attachment to the fruits of Karma what is
wrong with the dogma of Karma kand? this is how the Bhagvat
Gita defends the Karma marga.4 It would be quite possible to continue in this strain, to
pick up other dogmas and show how the Gita comes forward to offer a philosophic defence in
their support where none existed before. But this could be done only if one were to write
a treatise on the Bhagvat Gita. it is beyond the scope of a chapter the main purpose of
which is to assign to the Bhagvat Gita its proper place in the ancient Indian literature.
I have therefore selected the most important dogmas just to illustrate my thesis.
Two
other questions are sure to be asked in relation to my thesis. Whose are the Dogmas for
which the Bhagvat Gita offers this philosophical defence? Why did it become necessary for
the Bhagvat Gita to defend these Dogmas?
To
begin with the first question, the dogmas which the Gita defends are the dogmas of
counter-revolution as put forth in the Bible of counter-revolution namely Jaimini's Purvamimamsa. There ought to be no difficulty in accepting this
proposition. If there is any it is largely due to wrong meaning attached to the word Karma
yoga. Most writers on the Bhagvat Gita translate the word Karma yoga as 'action' and the word Janga yoga, as 'knowledge' and proceed to discuss the Bhagvat Gita as though it was
engaged in comparing and contrasting knowledge versus action in a generlized form. This is quite wrong. The Bhagvat Gita is not concerned
with any general, philosophical discussion of action versus knowledge. As a matter of
fact, the Gita is concerned with the particular and not
with the general. By Karma yoga
or action Gita means the dogmas contained in Jaimini's Karma kanda and by Jnana yoga or knowledge it means the dogmas contained in Badarayana's Brahma Sutras. That the Gita in speaking of Karma is not speaking of activity or
inactivity, quieticism or energism,
in general terms but religious acts and observances cannot be denied by anyone who has
read the Bhagvat Gita. It is to life the Gita from the position of a party pamphlet engaged in a
controversy on small petty points and make it appear as though it was a general treatise
on matters of high philosophy that this attempt is made to inflate the meaning of the
words Karma and Jnana and make them words of general import. Mr. Tilak is largely to be blamed for this trick of patriotic
Indians. The result has been that these false meanings have misled people into believing
that the Bhagvat Gita is an independent self-contained book
and has no relation to the literature that has preceded it. But if one were to keep to the
meaning of the word Karma yoga as one finds it in the Bhagvat Gita
itself one would be convinced that in speaking of Karma yoga the Bhagvat Gita is referring to nothing but the dogmas of Karma kanda as
propounded by Jaimini which it tries to renovate and
strengthen.
To
take up the second question : Why did the Bhagvat Gita feel it necessary to defend the dogmas of
counter-revolution? To my mind the answer is very clear. It was to save them from the
attack of Buddhism that the Bhagvat Gita came into being.
Buddha preached non-violence. He not only preached it but the people at large—-except
the Brahmins—had acepted it as the way of life. They
had acquired a repugnance to violence. Buddha preached against Chaturvarnya.
He used some of the most offensive similes in attacking the
theory of Chaturvarnya. The frame work of Chaturvarnya had been broken. The order of
Chaturvarnya had been turned upside down. Shudras and women
could become sannyasis, a status which counter-revolution
had denied them. Buddha had condemned the Karma kanda and the Yajnas.
he condemned them on the ground of Himsa or violence. He
condemned them also on the ground that the motive behind them was a selfish desire to
obtain bonus. What was the reply of the counterrevolutionaries to this attack? Only this.
These things were ordained by the Vedas, the Vedas were infallible, therefore the dogmas were not to be
questioned. In the Buddhist age, which was the most
enlightened and the most rationalistic age India has known, dogmas resting on such silly,
arbitrary, unrationalistic and fragile foundations could hardly stand. People who had come
to believe in non-violence as a principle of life and had gone so far as to make it a rule
of life—How could they be expected to accept the dogma that the Kshatriya may kill without sinning because the Vedas say that it is his duty to kill? People who had accepted
the gospel of social equality and who were remaking society
on the basis of each one according to his merits—how could they accept the chaturvarnya theory of gradation, and separation of man based
on birth simply because the Vedas say so? People who had
accepted the doctrine of Buddha that all misery in society is due to Tanha or what Tawny calls acquisitive instinct—how could
they accept the religion which deliberatly invited people
to obtain boons by sacrifices merely because there is behind it the authority of the
Vedas? There is no doubt that under the furious attack of Buddhism, Jaimini's counter-revolutionary dogmas were tottering and
would have collapsed had they not received the support which the Bhagvat Gita gave them. The
philosophic defence of the counter-revolutiona.ry doctrines given by the Bhagwat Gita is by no means impregnable. The philosophic
defence offered by the Bhagvat Gita of the Kshtriya's duty
to kill is to say the least puerile. To say that killing is no killing because what is
killed is the body and not the soul is an unheard of defence of murder. This is one of the
doctrines which make some people say that the doctrines make one's hair stand on their
end. If Krishna were to appear as a lawyer acting for a client who is being tried for
murder and pleaded the defence set out by him in the Bhagvat Gita there is not the
slightest doubt that he would be sent to the lunatic asylum. Similarly childish is the
defence of the Bhagvat Gita of the dogma of chaturvarnya. Krishna defends it on the basis
of the Guna theory of the Sankhya.
But Krishna does not seem to have realized what a fool he has made of himself. In the
chaturvarnya there are four Varnas. But the gunas according to the Sankhyas
are only three. How can a system of four varnas be defended on the basis of a philosophy
which does not recognise more than three varnas? The whole
attempt of the Bhagvat Gita to offer a philosophic defence of the dogmas of
counterrevolution is childish—and does not deserve a moment's serious thought.
None-the-less there is not the slightest doubt that without the help of the Bhagvat Gita
the counter-revolution would have died out, out of sheer stupidity of its dogmas.
Mischievous as it may seem, to the revolutionaries the part played by the Bhagvat Gita,
there is no doubt that it resuscitated counter-revolution and if the counterrevolution
lives even today, it is entirely due to the plausibility of the philosophic defence which
it received from the Bhagvat Gita— anti-Veda and anti-Yajna. Nothing can be a greater mistake than this. As
will appear from other portions of the Bhagvat Gita that it is not against the authority of the vedas and shastras (XVI, 23,
24: XVII, I I, 13, 24). Nor is it against the sanctity of
the yajnas (III. 9-15). It upholds the virtue of both.
There
is therefore no difference between Jaimini's Purva Mimansa and the Bhagvat Gita. If
anything, the Bhagvat Gita is a more formidable supporter
of counter-revolution than Jaimini's Purva Mirnansa could have ever been. It is formidable
because it seeks to give to the doctrines of counter-revolution that philosophic and
therefore permanent basis which they never had before and without
which they would never have survived. Particularly formidable than Jaimini's Purva Mimansa is the philosophic support which the Bhagvat Gita gives to the central doctrine of
counterrevolution—namely Chaturvarnya. The soul of the
Bhagvat Gita seems to be the defence of Chaturvarnya and securing its
observance in practice, Krishna does not merely rest content with saying that Chaturvarnya
is based on Guna-karma but he goes further and issues two
positive injunctions.
The
first injunction is contained in Chapter III verse 26. In this Krishna says: that a wise
man should not by counter propaganda create a doubt in the mind of an ignorant person who
is follower of Karma kand
which of course includes the observance of the rules of Chaturvarnya. In other words, you
must not agitate or excite people to rise in rebellion against the theory of Karma kand
and all that it includes. The second injunction is laid down in Chapter XVIII verses
41-48. In this Krishna tells that every one do the duty prescribed for his Varna and no
other and warns those who worship him and are his devotees that they will not obtain
salvation by mere devotion but by devotion accompanied by observance of duty laid down for
his Varna. In short, a Shudra however great he may be as a
devotee will not get salvation if he has transgressed the duty of the Shudra—namely
to live and die in the service of the higher classes. The second part of my thesis is that
the essential function of the Bhagvat gita to give new
support to Jaimini at least those portions of it which
offer philosophic defence of Jaimini's doctrines—has become to be written after
Jaimini's Purva Mimansa had been promulgated. The third part of my thesis is that this
philosophic defence of the Bhagvat Gita, of the doctrines
of couter-revolution became necessary because of the attack
to which they were subjected by the revolutionary and rationalistic thought of Buddhism.
I
must now turn to the objections that are likely to be raised against the validity of my
thesis. I see one looming large before me. I shall be told that I am assuming that the
Bhagvat Gita is posterior in time to Buddhism and to Jaimini's Purva Mimansa and that this asumption has no warrant behind it. I am
aware of the fact that my thesis runs counter to the most cherished view of Indian
scholars all of whom, seem to be more concerned in fixing a very ancient date to the compositon of the Bhagvat Gita far anterior to Buddhism and to Jaimini than in finding out what is the message of the Bhagvat
Gita and what value it has as a guide to man's life. This is particularly the case with Mr.Telang and Mr.Tilak. But as Garbe[f19]
observes "To Telang, as to every Hindu—how much
so ever enlightened—it is an article of faith to
believe in so high an antiquity of the Bhagvat Gita and where such necessities are
powerful criticism indeed comes to an end." In the
words of Prof. Garbe : -
"The
task of assigning a date to the Gita has been recognized by every one who has
earnestly tried to solve the problem, as being very difficult ;
and the difficulties grow (all the more) if the problem is presented two fold, viz., to determine as well the age of the original Gita as also
of its revision. I am afraid that generally speaking, we shall succeed in arriving, not at
any certainties, but only at probabilities in this matter."
What
are the probabilities? I have no doubt that the probabilities are in favour of my thesis.
Indeed so far as I can see there is nothing against it. In examining this question, I
propose first to advance direct evidence from the Gita itself showing that it has been
composed after Jaimini's Purva Mimansa and after Buddhism.
Chapter
III verses 9-13 of the Bhagvat Gita have a special significance. In this connection it is
true that the Bhagvat Gita does not refer to Jaimini by name: nor does it mention Mimansa
by name. But is there any doubt that in Chapter III verses 9-18 the Bhagvat Gita is
dealing with the doctrines formulated by Jaimini in his Purva Mimansa? Even Mr. Tilak[f20]
who believes in the antiquity of the Bhagvat Gita has to admit that here the Gita is
engaged in the examination of the Purva Mimansa doctrines. There is another way of
presenting this argument. Jaimini preaches pure and simple Karma
yoga. The Bhagvat Gita on the other hand preaches anasakti karma. Thus
the Guta preaches a doctrine which is fundamentally
modified Not only the Bhagvat Gita modifies the Karma yoga but attacks the upholders of
pure and simple Karma yoga in somewhat severe terms.[f21]
If
the Gita is prior to Jaimini one would expect Jaimini to take note of this attack of the
Bhagvat Gita and reply to it. But we do not find any reference in Jaimini to this anasakti karma yoga of the Bhagvat Gita.
Why? The only answer is that this modification came after Jaimini and not before—which is simply another way of saying that the Bhagvat Gita was composed after Jaimini's Purva Mimansa.
If
the Bhagvat Gita does not mention Purva Mimansa it does
mention by name the Brahma Sutras[f22]
of Badarayana. This reference to Brahma Sutras is a matter
of great significance for it furnishes direct evidence for the conclusion that the Gita is later than the Brahma Sutras.
Mr.
Tilak [f23]admits
that the reference to the Brahma Sutras is a clear and defniite
reference to the treatise of that name which we now have. It may be pointed out that Mr. Telang[f24]
discusses the subject in a somewhat cavalier fashion by saying that the treatise "Brahma Sutras"
referred to in the Bhagvat Gita is different from the
present treatise which goes by that name. He gives no evidence for so extraordinary a
proposition but relies on the conjectural statement of Mr. Weber[f25]—given
in a foot-note of his Treatise in Indian Literature, again without any evidence—that
the mention of Brhma Sutras in the Bhagvat Gita "may be taken as an
appellative rather than as a proper name." It would
not be fair to attribute any particular motives to Mr. Telang
for the view he has taken on this point. But there is nothing unfair in saying that Mr.
Telang [f26]shied
at admitting the reference to Brahma Sutra because he saw that Weber had on the authority
of Winternitz assigned 500 A.D.
to the composition of the Brahma Sutras, which would have destroyed his cherished theory
regarding the antiquity of the Bhagvat Gita. There is thus
ample internal evidence to support the conclusion that the Gita
was composed after Jaimini's Purva Mimansa and Badarayana's
Brahma Sutras.
Is
the Bhagvat Gita anterior to Buddhism? the question was
raised by Mr. Telang:
"We
come now to another point. What is the position of the Gita
in regard to the great reform of Sakya Muni? The question is one of much interest, having regard
particularly to the remarkable coincidences between Buddhistic doctrines and the doctrines
of the Gita to which we have drawn attention in the
footnotes to our translation. But the materials for deciding the question are unhappily not forth coming. Professor Wilson,
indeed, thought that there was an allusion to Buddhism in
the Gita.[f27]
but
his idea was based on a confusion between the Buddhists and
the Charvakas or materialists.[f28]
Failing that allusion, we have nothing very tangible but the unsatisfactory 'negative argument' based on
mere non-mention of Buddhism in the Gita. That argument is
not quite satisfactory to my own mind, although, as I have elsewhere pointed out,[f29]
some of the ground occupied by the Gita is common to it with Buddhism, and although
various previous thinkers are alluded to directly or indirectly in the Gita. There is,
however, one view of the facts of this question, which appears to me to corroborate the
conclusion deducible by means of the negative argument here
referred to. The main points on which Budddha's protest
against Brahmanism rests, seem to be the true authority of
the Vedas and the true view of the differences of caste. On
most points of doctrinal speculation, Buddhism is still but
one aspect of the older Brahmanism[f30].
The various coincidences to which we have drawn attention show that, if there is need to
show it. Well now, on both these points, the Gita, while it does not go the whole length
which Buddha goes, itself embodies a protest against the views current about the time of
its composition. The Gita does not, like Buddhism, absolutely reject the Vedas, but it shelves them. The Gita does not totally root out
caste. It places caste on a less untenable basis. One of two hypothesis therefore presents
itself as a rational theory of these facts. Either the Gita and Buddhism were alike the
outward manifestation of one and the same spiritual upheaval which shook to its centre the
current religion, the Gita being the earlier and less thorough going form of it ; or Buddhism having already begun to tell on Brahmanism, the
Gita was an attempt to bolster it up, so to say, at its least weak points, the weaker ones being altogether
abandoned. I do not accept the latter alternative, because I cannot see any indication in
the Gita of an attempt to compromise with a powerful attack on the old Hindu system while
the fact that, though strictly orthodox, the author of the Gita still undermines the
authority, as unwisely venerated, of the Vedic revelation;
and the further fact, that in doing this, he is doing what others also had done before him
or about his time ; go, in my opinion, a considerable way
towards fortifying the results of the negative argument already set forth. To me Buddhism
is perfectly intelligible as one outcome of that play of thought on high spiritual topics,
which in its other, and as we may say, less thorough going,
manifestation we see in the Upanishads and the Gita[f31]."
I have quoted this passage
in full because it is typical of all Hindu scholars. Everyone of them is most reluctant to admit that the Bhagvat
Gita is anyway influenced by Buddhism and is ever ready to deny that the Gita has borrowed anything from Buddhism. It is the attitude
of Prof. Radhakrishnan and also of Tilak. Where there is any similarity in thought between the
Bhagvat Gita and Buddhism too strong and too close to be
denied, the argument is that it is borrowed from the Upanishads. It is typical of the mean mentality of the
counterrevolutionaries not to allow any credit to Buddhism on any account.
The
absurdity of these views must shock all those who have made a comparative study of the
Bhagvat Gita and the Buddhist
Suttas. For if it is true to say that Gita is saturated with Sankhya
philosophy it is far more true to say that the Gita is full
of Buddhist ideas.[f32]
The similarity between the two is not merely in ideas but also in language. A few
illustrations will show how true it is.
The
Bhagvat Gita discusses Bramha-Nirvana.[f33]
The steps by which one reaches Bramha. Nirvana are stated
by the Bhagvat Gita to be (1) Shraddha
(Faith in oneself); (2) Vyavasaya (Firm determination): (3)
Smriti (Rememberance of the
goal); (4) Samadhi (Earnest contemplation) and (5) Prajna (Insight or True Knowledge). From where has the Gita borrowed this Nirvana theory? Surely it is not borrowed
from the Upanishads. For no Upanishad
even mentions the word Nirvana. The whole idea is peculiarly Buddhist and is borrowed from
Buddhism. Anyone who has any doubt on the point may compare this Bramha-Nirvana of the Bhagvat Gita
with the Buddhist conception of Nirvana as set out in the Mahapari-nibbana
Sutta, It will be found that they are the same which the Gita has laid down for Bramha-Nirvana. Is it not a fact that
the Bhagvat Gita has borrowed the entire conception of Brmhma Nirvana instead of Nirvana for no other reason except
to conceal the fact of its having stolen it from Buddhism?
Take
another illustration. In Chapter VII verses 13-20 there is a discussion as to who is dear
to Krishna; one who has knowledge, or one who performs karma
or one who is adevotee. Krishna says that the Devotees is dear to him but adds that he
must have the true marks of a Devotee. What is the charcter
of a true Devotee? According to Krishna the true devotee is
one who practices (1) Maitri; (loving Kindness); (2) Karuna (compassion): (3) Mudita
(sympathizing joy) and (4) Upeksa (unconcernedness). From
where has the Bhagvate Gita borrowed
these qualifications of a perfect Devotee? Here again, the source is Buddhism. Those who
want proof may compare the Mahapadana Sutta,[f34]
and the Tevijja Sutta[f35]
where Buddha has preached what Bhavanas (mental attitude)
are necessary for one to cherish for the training of the heart. This comparison will show
that the whole ideology is borrowed from Buddhism and that too word for word.
Take
a third illustration. In chapter XIII the Bhagvat Gita descusses the subject of Kshetra-Kshetrajna.
In verses 7-11 Krishna points out what is knowledge and what is ignorance in the following
language:
"Pridelessness
(Humility), Unpretentiousness, Non-injury or Harmlessness, Forgiveness,
Straight-forwardness, (uprightness), Devotion to Preceptor,
Purity, Steadiness, Self-restraint, Desirelessness
towards objects of sense, absence of Egoism, Reflection on the suffering and evil of
Birth, Death, decrepitude and disease, Non-attachment, Non-identification of oneself with
regard to son, wife and home and the rest, Constant even-mindedness
on approach of both (what is) agreeable and (what is) disagreeable unswerving devotion to
Me with undivided meditation of Me, Resort to sequestered spots (contemplation,
concentration, in solitude), Distaste for the society of worldly
men, Incessant application to the knowledge relating to self, Perception or realisation of
the true purport of the knowledge of the Tattvas (Samkhya
Philosophy), all this is called 'knowledge'; what is Ajnana (Ignorance)
which is the reverse thereof." Can anyone who knows
anything of the Gospel of Buddha deny that the Bhagvat Gita has not in these stanzas
reproduced word for word the main doctrines of Buddhism?
In
chapter XIII verses 5, 6, 18, 19, the Bhagvat Gita gives a new metaphorical interpretation
of karmas under various heads (1) Yajnas (sacrifices); (2) Dana
(Gifts); (3) Tapas (penances); (4) Food and (5) Svadhyaya (Vedic study). What
is the source of this new interpretation of old ideas ?
Compare with this what Buddha is reported to have said in the Majjhina
Nikaya 1, 286 Sutta XVI. Can
anyone doubt that what Krishna says in verses 5,6, 18, 19 of chapter XVII is a verbatim
reproduction of the words of Buddha?
These
are only a few illustrations I have selected those of major doctrinal
importance. Those who are interested in pursuing the subject may take up the reference to
similarities between Gita and Buddhism given by Telang in the footnotes to his edition of the Bhagvat Gita and satisfy their
curiosity. But the illustrations I have given will be enough to show how greatly the
Bhagvat Gita is permeated by Buddhistic ideology and how
much the Gita has borrowed from Buddhism. To sum up the
Bhagvat Gita seems to be deliberately modelled on Buddhists Suttas. The Buddhists Suttas are dialogues.
So is the Bhagvat Gita. Buddha's religion offered salvation
to women and Shudras. Krishna also comes forward to offer
salvation to women and Shudras. Buddhists say, "I surrender to Buddha, to Dhamma
and to Sangha." So Krishna says, "Give up all
religions and surrender unto Me." No parallel can be closer than what exists between
Buddhism and Bhagvat Gita.
I
have shown that Gita is later than Purva Mimansa and also later
than Buddhism. I could well stop here. But I feel I cannot. For there still remains one
argument against my thesis which requires to be answered. It is the argument of Mr. Tilak. It is an ingenious argument. Mr. Tilak realizes that
there are many similarities in ideas and in words between the Bhagvat Gita and Buddhism. Buddhism being earlier than the Bhagvat Gita, the obvious conclusion is that the Bhagvat Gita is the debtor and Buddhism is the creditor. This obvious
conclusion is not palatable to Mr. Tilak or for the matter of that to all upholders of
counter-revolution. With them it is a question of honour that counter-revolution should
not be shown to be indebted to Revolution. To get over this difficulty Mr. Tilak has
struck a new line. He points out the distinction between Hinayana
Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism and say, that Mahayana Buddhism was later than Bhagvat Gita and if there are any similarities between the Buddhism
and Bhagvat Gita it is due to the borrowing by the Mahayanist from the Bhagvat Gita.
This raises two questions. What is the date of the origin of the Mahayana Buddhism? What is the date of the composition of the Bhagvat Gita? The argument of Mr. Tilak is ingenious and clever. But
it has no substance. In the first place, it is not original. It is based on certain casual
remarks made by Winternitz[f36]
and by Kern[f37]
in
foot-notes that there are certain similarties between the Bhagvat Gita and the Mahayan Buddhism and that there similarities are the result of
Mahayana Buddhism borrowing its ideas from the Bhagvat
Gita. Behind these remarks there is no evidence of special research either on the part of Winternitz, Kern or Mr. Tilak. All
of them seem to be led away by the assumption that the Bhagvat Gita is earlier than
Mahayana Buddhism.
This
leads me to examine the question of the date of the Bhagvat Gita particularly with
reference to the theory as put forth by Mr. Tilak. Mr. Tilak[f38]
is of opinion that the Gita is part of the Mahabharata and
that both have been written by one and the same author named Vyasa
and consequently the date of the Mahabharata must be the
date of the Bhagvat Gita. The Mahabharata, Mr. Tilak argues, must have been written at
least 500 years before the Shaka Era on the groung that the stories contained in the Mahabharata were
known to Megasthenes who was in India about 300 B.C. as a
Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. The Shaka Era began in 78 A.D.
On this basis it follows that the Bhagvat Gita must have been composed before 422 B.C. This is his view about the
date of the composition of the present Gita. According to him, the original Gita must have
been some centuries older than Mahabharata If reliance be placed on the tradition referred
to in the Bhagvat Gita that the religion of the Bhagvat Gita was taught by Nara to Narayan in very ancient
times. Mr. Tilak's theory as to the date of the composition
of the Mahabharata is untenable. In the first place, it assumes that the whole of the
Bhagvat Gita and the whole of Mahabharat have been written
at one stretch, at one time and by one hand. There is no warrant for such an assumption,
either in tradition, or in the internal evidence of these two treatises. Confining the
discussion to the Mahabharata the assumption made by Mr. Tilak is quite opposed to
well-known Indian traditions. This tradition divides the compostion
of the Mahabharata into three stages; (1) Jaya (2) Bharata and (3) Mahabharata and assigns to each part a
different author. According to this tradition Vyasa was the author of the 1st edition so
to say of the Mahabharata called 'Jaya'. Of the Second Edition called 'Bharata' tradition assigns the authorship to Vaishampayana and that of the
Third Edition called Mahabharata to `Sauti'. That this
tradition is well-founded has been confirmed by the researches of Prof. Hopkins based on the examination of internal evidence
furnished by the Mahabharata. According to Prof. Hopkins[f39]
there have been several stages in the composition of the Mahabharata. As has been pointed
out by Prof. Hopkins[f40]
in the first stage it was just a Pandu Epic consisting of
plays and legends about heroes who took part in the Mahabharata
war without the masses of didactic material. Such a Mahabharata,
says Prof. Hopkins, may have come into existence between
400-200 B.C. The second stage was the remaking of the epic by the inclusion of didactic
matter and the addition of Puranic material. This was
between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. The third stage is marked
when (1) the last books were added to the composition as it stood at the end of the second
stage with the introduction of the first book and (2) the swollen Anushasana Parva was separated
from Shanti Parva and recognized as a separate book. This
happened between 200 to 400 A.D. To these three stages Prof. Hopkins adds a fourth or a
final stage of occasional amplification which started from 400 A.D. onwards. In coming to
this conclusion Prof. Hopkins has anticipated and dealt with all the arguments advanced by
Mr. Tilak such as the mention of Mahabharata in Panini[f41]
and in the Grihyasutras.[f42]
The only new pieces of evidence produced by Mr. Tilak which has not been considered by
Prof. Hopkins are two. One such piece of evidence consists of the statements which are
reported to have been recorded by Megasthenes, [f43]the
Greek Ambassador to the court of Chandra Gupta Maurya, and the other is
the astronomical evidence[f44],
in the Adi Parva which refers to the Uttarayana starting with the Shravana
constellation. The facts adduced by Mr. Tilak as coming from Megasthenes
may not be denied and may go to prove that at the time of Megasthenes i.e., about 300 B.C.
a cult of Krishna worship had come into existence among the Sauraseni
community. But how can this prove that the Mahabharata had then come into existence? It cannot. Nor can it prove that the legends and stories
mentioned by Megasthenes were taken by him from the Mahabharata. For there is nothing to
militate against the view that these legends and stories were a floating mass of Saga and
that it served as a reservoir both to the writer of the Mahabharata as well as to Greek
Ambassador.
Mr.
Tilak's astronomical evidence may be quite sound. He is
right in saying[f45]
that "it is stated in the Anugita
that Visvamitra started the enumeration of the
constellation with Shravana (Ma.Bha.Asva.44.2, and Adi.71.34). That has been interpreted
by commentators as showing that the Uttarayana then started
with the Shravana constellation, and no other interpretation is proper. At the date of the Vedanga-Jyotisa, the Uttarayana
used to start with the Sun in the Dhanistha constellation.
According to astronomical calculations, the date when the Uttarayana
should start with the Sun in the Dhanistha constellation to about 1,500 years before the Saka era; and according to astronomical calculations, it takes
about a thousand years for the Uttarayana to start one constellation earlier. According to
this calculation, the date when the Uttarayana ought to start with the Sun in the Shravana constellation comes to about 500 years before the
Saka era. This conculsion would have been proper if it was
true that the Mahabharata was one whole piece, written at
one time by one author. It has, however, been shown that there is no warrant for such an
assumption. In view of this Mr. Tilak's astroncomical evidence cannot be used to determine the date of
the Mahabharata. It cam be used only to determine the date of that part of the Mahabharata
which is affected by it—in this case the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata. For these reasons Mr. Tilak's theory as to the date of the composition of the
Mahabharata must fall to the ground. Indeed any attempt to fix a single date for a work
like the Mahabharata which is a serial story produced in parts at long intervals must be
regarded as futile. All that one can say is that the Mahabharata was composed between
400B.C. to 400A.D. a conclusion too broad to be used for the purpose which Mr. Tilak has in view. Even this span seems to some scholars to be
too narrow. It is contended[f46]
that the reference to Edukas
in the 190th Adhyaya of the Vanaparva
has been wrongly interpreted to mean Buddhist Stupas when, as a matter of fact, it refers to the Idgahas created by
the Muslim invaders for Muslim converts. If this interpretation is correct it would show
that parts of the Mahabharata were written about or after the invasions of Mohammed Ghori.
Let
me now turn to examine Mr. Tilak's theory as to the date of the composition of the Bhagvat Gita. There are really
two propositions underlying his theory. First is that the Gita is part of the Mahabharata,
both are written at one time and are the handiwork of one man. His second proposition is
that the Bhagvat Gita has been the same what it is today from the very beginning when it
first came to be written. To avoid confusion I propose to take them separately.
Mr.
Tilak's object in linking the Gita with the Mahabharata in the matter of its composition
is quite obvious. It is to have the date of the Mahabharata which he thinks is known to derermine the date of the Bhagvat Gita which is unknown. The
basis on which Mr. Tilak has tried to establish an integral connection between the
Mahabharata and the Bhagvat Gita is unfortunately the weakest part of his theory. To accept that the Gita
is a part of the Mahabharata
because the author of both is Vyasa-
and this is the argument of Mr. Tilak—is
to accept a fiction for a fact. It assumes that Vyasa is the name of some particular
individual capable of being identified. This is evident from the fact that we have Vyasa
as the author of the Mahabharata, Vyasa as the author of
the Puranas, Vyasa as the author of Bhagvat Gita and Vyasa as the
author of the Bramha Sutras. It cannot therefore be
accepted as true that the same Vyasa is the author of all these works separated as they
are by a long span of time extending to several centuries. It is well-known how orthodox
writers wishing to hide their identity get better authority for their works by the use of
a revered name were in the habit of using Vyasa as a nom-de-plume
or pen name. If the author of the Gita is a Vyasa he must
be a different Vyasa. There is another argument which seems to militate against Mr. Tilak's theory of synchroniety
between the composition of the Bhagvat Gita and the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata consists of 18 Parvas.
There are also 18 Puranas. It is curious to find that Bhagvat Gita
has also 18 Adhyayas. The question is : Why should there be this parallelism? The answer is that the ancient Indian writers regarded
certain names and certain numbers as invested with great sanctity. The name Vyasa and the
number 18 are illustrations of this fact. But there is more in the fixation of 18 as the
chapters of the Bhagvat Gita than is apparent on the face
of it. Who set 18 as the sacred number, the Mahabharata or the Gita?
If the Mahabharata, then Gita must have been written after
the Mahabharata. If it is the Bhagvat Gita, then the
Mahabharata must have been written after the Gita. In any
case, the two could not have been written at one and the same time.
These
considerations may not be accepted as decisive against Mr. Tilak's
first proposition. But there is one which I think is decisive. I refer to the relative
position of Krishna in the Mahabharata and in the Bhagvat Gita.
In the Mahabharata, Krishna is nowhere represented as a God accepted by all. The
Mahabharata itself shows the people were not prepared even to give him the first place.
When at the time of the Rajasuya Yajna,
Dharma offered to give Krishna priority in the matter of honouring the guest, Shishupala—the
near relation of Krishna—protested and abused Krishna. He not only charged him with
low origin, but also with loose morals, an intriguer who violated rules of war for the sake of
victory. So abhorent but so true was this record of
Krishna's foul deeds that when Duryodhan flung them in the
face of Krishna, the Mahabharata itself in the Gada Parva records that the Gods in heaven came out to listen to
the charges made by Duryodhan against Krishna and after listening showered flowers as a
token of their view that the charges contained the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
On the other hand, the Bhagvat Gita
presented Krishna as God omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, pure, loving, essence of
goodness. Two such works containing two quite contradictory estimates about one and the
same personality could not have been written at one and the same time by one and the same
author. It is a pity that Mr. Tilak in his anxiety to give
a pre-Buddhist date to the composition of the Bhagvat Gita
should have completely failed to take note of these
important considerations.
The
second proposition of Mr. Tilak is equally unsound. The attempt to fix a date for the
composition of the Bhagvat Gita is nothing but the pursuit of a mirage. It is doomed to
failure. The reason is that the Bhagvat Gita is not a
single book written by a single author. It consists of different parts written at
different times by different authors.
Prof.
Garbe is the only scholar who has seen the necessity of
following this line of inquiry. Prof. Garbe hold that there are two parts of the Bhagvat
Gita one original and one added. I am not satisfied with this statement. My reading of the
Bhagvat Gita leads me to the conclusion that there have been four separate parts of
Bhagvat Gita. They are so distinct that taking even the present treatise as it stands they
can be easily marked off.
(i)
The original Gita was nothing more than a heroic tale told or a ballad recited by the bards of how Arjuna was not
prepared to fight and how Krishna forced him to engage in battle, how Arjuna yielded and
so on. It may have been a romantic story but there was nothing religious or philosophical
in it.
This
original Gita will be found embedded in Chapter I, Chapter II, verses.. . ..
and Chapter XI verses 32-33 in which Krishna is reported to have ended the argument:
"
Be my tool, carry out my will, don't worry about sin and evil resulting from fighting, do
as I tell you, don't be impudent.". This is the
argument which Krishna used to compel Arjuna to fight. And this argument of coercion and
compulsion made Arjuna yield. Krishna probably threatened Arjuna with brute force if he
did not actually use it. The assumption of Vishva-rupa by
Krishna is only different way of describing the use of brute force. On that theory it is
possible that the chapter in the present Bhagvat Gita dealing with Vishva-rupa is also a
part of the original Bhagvat Gita.
(ii)
The first patch on the original Bhagvat Gita is the part in which Krishna is spoken of as Ishvara. the God of the Bhagvat religion. This part of the
Gita is embedded in those verses of the present Bhagvat Gita which are devoted to Bhakti Yoga.
(iii)
The second patch on the original Bhagvat Gita is the part which introduces the Sankhya and the Vedanta
philosophy as a defence to the doctrines of Purva Mimansa which they did not have before. The Gita was originally only a historical Saga with the cult of
Krishna came to be interwoven. The Philosophy portion of the Bhagvat Gita was a later intrusion can be proved quite easily from the
nature of the original dialogue and the sequence of it.
In
chapter I verses 20-47 Arjuna mentions those difficulties.
In chapter II Krishna attempts to meet the difficulties mentioned by Arjuna. There are
arguments and counter arguments. Krishna's first argument is contained in verse 2 and 3 in
which Krishna tells Arjuna that his conduct is infamous, unbecoming an Arya and that he should not play the part of an effeminate
which was unworthy of him. To this, Arjuna gives a reply which is embodied in verses 4 to
8. In verses 4 to 5 he says, "how can I kill Bhishma
and Drona who are entitled to highest reverence: it would
be better to live by begging than kill them. I do not wish to live to enjoy a kindom won by killing old revered elders. " In verses 6 to 8 Arjuna says: "I do not know which of the two is more meritorious,
whether we should vanquish the Kauravas or whether we
should be vanquished by them. "Krishna's reply to this
is contained in verses 11 to 39 in which he propounds (i)
that grief is unjustified because things are imperishable, (ii)
that it is a false view that a man is killed when the atman
is eternal and (iii) that he must fight because it is the duty of the Kshatriya to fight. Any one who reads the dialogue will notice
the following points:
(1)
The questions put by Arjuna are not
philosophical questions. They are natural questions put by a worldly
man faced with worldly problems.
(2)
Upto a point Krishna treats them as natural questions and
returns to them quite natural replies.
(3)
The dialogue takes a new turn. Arjuna after having informed Krishna positively and
definitely that he will not fight, suddenly takes a new turn and expresses a doubt whether
it is agood to kill the Kauravas or be killed by them.This is a deliberate departure designed to give Krishna a philosophical
defence of war, uncalled for by anything said by Arjuna.
(4)
Again there is a drop in the tone of Krishna from verses 31 to 38. He treats the question
as natural and tells him to fight because it is the duty of the Kshatriya to fight.
Anyone
can see from this that the introduction of the Vedanta philosophy is quite unnatural and
therefore a later intrusion. With regard to the introduction of the Sankhya philosophy the
case is quite obvious. Often it is expounded without any question by Arjuna and whenever it has been propounded in answer to a
question that question has nothing to do with the war. This shows that the philosophic
parts of the Bhagvat Gita
are not parts of the original Gita but have been added
later on and in order to find a place for them, new, appropriate and leading questions
have been put in the mouth of Arjuna which have nothing to do with the mundane problems of
war.
(iv)
The third patch on the oriinal Bhagvat Gita consists of
verses in which Krishna is elevated from the position of Ishwara
to that of Parmeshwara. This
patch can be easily detected as being chapters X and XV
where Krishna says: (Quotation not mentioned) .......... As I said, to go in for a precise
date for the composition of the Bhagvat Gita is to go on a fool's errand and that if an
attempt in that direction is to be of any value, effort must be directed to determine the
date of each patch separately. Proceeding in this way it is possible that what I have
called the original unphilosophic Bhagvat Gita was part of the first edition of the Mahabharata called Jaya. The
first patch on the original Bhagvat Gita in which Krishna is depicted as Ishvara must be placed in point of date sometimes later than Megasthenes when Krishna was only a tribal God.[f47]
How much later it is not possible to say. But it must be considerably later. For it must
be remembered that the Brahmins were not friendly to Krishnaism
in the beginning. In fact they were opposed to it.[f48]
It must have taken some time before the Brahmins could have become reconciled to Krishna
worship.[f49]
The
second patch on the original Bhavat Gita. having reference
to Sankhya and Vedanta must
for reason already given be placed later than the Sutras of Jaimini
and Badarayana. The question of the date of these Sutras
has carefully been examined by Prof. Jacobi[f50].
His conclusion is that these Sutras were composed sometime between 200 and 450 A.D.
The
third patch on the original Bhagvat Gita in which Krishna is raised into Parmeshvara must be placed during the reign of the Gupta Kings. The reason is obvious. Gupta kings made
Krishna-Vas.udev their family deity as their opponents the Shaka
kings had made Mahadeo their family deity. The Brahmins to
whom religion has been a trade, who were never devoted to one God but came forward to
worship the deity of the ruling race thought of pleasing their masters by making their
family deity into a high and mighty Parmeshvar. If this is
correct explanation then this patch on the original Bhagvat
Gita must be placed between 400 and 464 A.D.
All
this goes to confirm the view that the attempt to place the Bhagvat Gita prior in point of time to Buddhism cannot succeed. It is
the result of wishful thinking on the part of those who have inherited a positive dislike
to Buddha and his revolutionary gospel. History does not support it. History proves quite
abnormally that at any rate those portions of the Bhagvat Gita
which have any doctrinal value are considerably later in
point of time to the Buddhist canon and the Sutras of Jaimini and Badarayana.
The
discussion of the dates not only proves that the Bhagvat Gita
is later than Hinayana Buddhism but is also later than Mahayana Buddhism. The impression prevails that Mahayana
Buddhism is later in origin. It is supposed to have come into being after A.D. 100 when Kanishka held the third Buddhist Council to settle the
dissension in the Buddhist Church. This is absolutely a mistake.[f51]
It is not true that after the Council a new creed of Buddhism came into existence. What
happened is that new names of abuse came into existence for parties which were very old.
As Mr. Kimura has shown the Mahayanist
is simply another name for the sect of Buddhists known as Mahasanghikas. The sect of Mahasanghikas
had come into being very much earlier than is supposed to be the case. If tradition be
believed the sect had come into being at the time of the First Buddhist Council held at Pataliputra 236 years after the death of Buddha i.e., 307 B.C[f52]for
settling the Buddhist canon and is said to have led the opposition to the Theravad sect of Buddhism which later on came to be
stigmatized as Hinayana (which means those holding to the low path). There could hardly be
any trace of Bhagvat Gita when the Mahasanghikas later
known as Mahayanists came into being.
Apart
from this what have the Mahayanists borrowed from the Bhagvat Gita?
Indeed what can they borrow from the Bhagvat Gita? As Mr.
Kimura points out the doctrine of every school of Buddhism is mainly concerned at least
with three doctrines: (1) Those which deal with cosmic
existence; (2) Those which deal with Buddhology; and (3)
Those which deal with conception of human life. Mahayana is no exception to this. Except
probably on Buddhology the Mahayanists
could hardly use the Bhagvat Gita
to draw upon So different is the aproach of the two on the
other doctrines and even this possibility is excluded by the factor of time.
The
foregoing discussion completely destroys the only argument that could be urged against my
thesis—namely that the Bhagvat Gita is very ancient, pre-Buddhistic
in origin and therefore could not be related to Jaimini's Purva Mimansa and treated as an
attempt to give a philosophic defence of his counter-revolutionary doctrines.
To
sum up, my thesis is three-fold. In other words it has three parts. First is that the
Bhagvat Gita is fundamentally a counter-revolutionary treatise of the same class as Jamini's Purva Mimansa—the official Bible of
counter-revolution. Some writers relying on verses 40-46 of Chapter II hold the view that
the Bhagvat Gita is
{In all the copies available with
us, the essay has been left here incomplete, as is seen
from the above sentence—Editors.)
Analytical Notes of Virat Parva & Udyog Parva
VIRAT PARVA
1.
The spies sent by Kauravas to search for the existence of
the Pandavas return to Duryodhan
and tell him that they are unable to discover them. They ask his permission as to what to
do Virat Parva, Adhya. 25.
2.
Duryodhan asks for advice from his advisers. Kama said send other spies. Dushasan said they might have gone beyond the sea. But search
for them.—Ibid. —Adhya. 26.
3.
Drona said the Pandavas are not likely to be defeated or
destroyed. They may be living as Tapasis. therefore send Siddhas and Brahamins as
spies— Ibid. Adhya 27.
4.
Bhishma supports Drona—Ibid Adhya. 28.
5.
Kripacharya supported Bhishma and added—Pandavas are
great enemies. But wise man does not neglect even small enemies. While they are in Agnyatavasa you
should go on collecting armies from now.— Ibid Adhya. 29.
6.
Then Susharma King of Trigarth
raised quite a different subject. He said that Kichaka who was the Senapati of King Virat I hear dead, King Virat
is to give us great trouble. Kichaka having been dead Virat must have become very weak.
Why not invade the Kingdom of Virat? This is the most
opportune time. Kama also supported Susharma. Why worry about the Pandavas, these Pandavas
are without wealth, without army and fallen. Why bother with them? They might have even
been dead by now. Give up the search and let undertake the project of Susharma—Ibid Adhya. 30.
7.
Susharma's invasion of Vairat.
Susharma carries away the cows of Virat. The cow herds go and inform Virat of this and ask
him to pursue Susharma and rescue the cows.—Ibid
Adhya. 31.
8.
Virat became ready for war. In the meanwhile Shatanik the younger brother of Virat suggested
that instead of going alone he
might
take with him Kank (Sahadeo)
Ballava (Yudhishtira) Santipal (Bhima) and Granthik (Nakula) to help him to fight Susharma.
Virat agreed and they all went—Ibid. Adhya. 31.
9.
War between Shusharma and Virat—Ibid Adhya. 32.
10.
Yudhishthira rescues Virat.—Ibid. Adhya. 33.
11.
Announcement in the Virat Nagari that their King is safe.— Ibid Adhya.
34.
ENTRY IN VIRAT NAGARI BY KAURVAS
12.
While King Virat went after Susharman Duryodhan with Bhishma, Drona, Kama,
Krapa, Ashvashthama, Shakuni, Dushashana, Vivinshati,
Vikarna, Chitrasen, Durmukha, Dushala and other warriers
entered the Virat Nagari and captured the cows of Virat and were going away. The cowherds
came to the palace of King Virat and gave the news. They need not find the King but they found his son Uttar. so they gave him the news.—Ibid Adhya. 35.
13.
Uttar began to boast saying he was superior to Arjuna and would do the job. But his complaint was that there
was no one to act his Sarathi. Draupadi went and
told him that Brahannada was at one time the Sarathi of
Arjuna. Why not ask him? He said he had no courage and requested Draupadi to make the
request. Why not ask your younger sister Manorama. So he told Manorama
to bring Brahannada—Ibid Adhya. 36.
14.
Manorama takes Brahannada to his brothers and Uttara persuades
him to be his Sarathi. Brahannada agreed and took the Rath of Uttara
in front of the Kauravas—Ibid. Adhya. 37.
15.
On seeing the army of the Kauravas Uttara left the Rath and started running away. Arjuna
stopped him. The Kauravas seeing this began to suspect that the man might be Arjuna.
Arjuna told him not to be afraid—Ibid
Adhya. 38.
16.
Arjuna took his Ratha to the Shami
tree. Seeing this Drona said he must be Arjuna. Hearing this the Kauravas were greatly
upset. But Duryodhana said if Drona is right it is good for
us. Because it is before the thirteenth year that the Pandavas
will have been discovered and they will have to suffer Vanavas
again for 12 years.—Ibid Adhya. 39.
17.
Arjuna asks Uttara to climb the Shami tree and to take down the weapons.—Ibid Adhya. 40.
18.
Uttara's doubts about the corpse on the Shami Tree—Ibid Adhya.
41.
19.
Uttara's excitement after seeing the weapons—Ibid
Adhya. 42.
20.
Arjuna's description of the weapons.—Ibid Adhya. 43.
21.
Uttara's Inquiry regarding the whereabouts about the Pandavas.—Ibid Adhya. 44.
22.
Climbing down of Uttara from the tree—Ibid Adhya. 45.
23.
The Rath with Vanar Symbol. Drona
becomes sure that he is Arjuna. Bad omens seen by the army
of the Kauravas.—Ibid Adhya. 46.
24.
Duryodhan encourages the soldiers who were frightened by Drona's saying that it was Arjuna. Kama's slander of Drona and
proposal to Duryodhan to remove Drona as a Commander-in-Chief.—
Ibid Adhya. 47.
25.
Boasting by Kama and Pratijna to defeat Arjuna— Ibid Adhya. 48.
26.
Krapacharya's admonition to Kama not to brag and boast. War
is regarded as bad by the Shastras—Ibid Adhya. 49.
27.
Ashvasthama abuses Kama and Duryodhan because of their
slander of Drona—Ibid Adhya. 50.
28.
Ashavashthama abused Kama and Duryodhan for speaking ill of
Drona. Kama replied, 'after all I am only a Suta.,' But Arjuna has behaved as bad as Rama behaved towards Vali—Ibid
Adhya. 50.
29.
Ashvashthama was quieted by Bhisma,
Drona and Krapa, Duryodhan and Kama tendered apology to
Drona— -Ibid Adhya. 51. 30. Bhishma's decision that the Pandavas have completed 13
years.—ibid Adhya. 52.
31.
Arjuna has defeated the army of the Kauravas.— Ibid Adhya. 53.
32.
Arjuna defeats Kama's Bhrata.
Arjuna defeats Kama and Kama runs away— Ibid
Adhya. 54.
33.
Arjuna destroys the army of the Kauravas and breaks the Rath of Kripacharya—Ibid
Adhya. 55.
34.
Gods came out in heaven to witness the fight between Arjuna and the army of the
Kauravas—Ibid Adhya. 56.
35.
Battle between Krapa and Arjuna and the running away of Krapa.—Ibid Adhya. 57.
36.
Battle between Drona and Arjuna and running away of Drona.—Ibid Adhya. 58.
37.
Battle between Ashavashthama and Arjuna—Ibid
Adhya. 59.
38.
Battle between Kama and Arjuna, defeat of Kama—Adhya. 60.
39.
Attack on Bhishma by Arjuna—Ibid Adhya. 61.
40.
Arjuna kills the Kauravas soldiers—Ibid
Adhya. 62.
41.
Defeat of Bhishma and his running away from the Battle-field— Ibid Adhya. 64.
42.
Fainting of the soldiers of the Kauravas. Bhishmas telling
them
to
return home.—Ibid Adhya. 66.
43.
Kaurava soldiers surrendering to Arjuna
from Abhay. Uttar and Arjuna return to Virat Nagari— Ibid Adhya. 67.
44.
Virat enters his capital and his people honouring him.— Ibid Adhya. 68.
45.
The Pandavas enter the King's Assembly.—Ibid Adhya.
69.
46.
Arjuna introduces his other brothers in Virat.-- Ibid Adhya. 71.
47.
Marriage between Arjuna's son and the daughter of Virat.— -lbid Adhya. 72.
48.
Thereafter the Pandavas leave Virat Nagari and live in Upaplowya
Nagari— Ibid Adhya. 72.
49.
Arjuna thereafter brought his son Abhimanyu, Vasudev, and Yadav from Anrut Desh—lbid Adhya. 72.
50.
Friends of Yudhisthir such as Kings Kashiraj and Shalya came with
two Akshauhini army. Similarly Yagyasen
Drupadraj came with one
Akshauhini. Draupadi's
all sons
Ajinkya, Shikhandi, Drustadumna also came .—Ibid 72.
UDYOGAPARVA
1.
After the marriage of Abhimanyu the Yadavas and the
Pandavas met in the Sabha of King Virat. Krishna addresses
them as to what is to be done about the future. We must do what is good both Kauravas and Pandavas. Dharma
will accept anything—even one villaga—by Dharma. Even if he
is given the whole kingdom by Duryodhana he will not accept
it. Upto now the Pandavas have observed Niti. But if the
Kauravas observe Aniti the Pandavas will
not hesitate to kill the Kauravas. Let nobody be afraid on account of the fact that the
Pandavas are a minority. They have many friends who will come to their rescue. We must try
to know the wishes of the Kauravas. I suggest that we should send a messanger to Duryodhan and ask
him to give part of the Kingdom to the Pandavas.—Udyog
Parva, Adhya. 1.
2.
Balaram supports the proposal of Krishna but added that it
was the fault of Dharma knowing that he was losing at the hands of Shakuni. Therefore instead of fighting with the Kauravas get
what you can by negotiation.—lhid, Adhya.
2.
3.
Satyaki got up and condemned Balaram for his attitude—
Ibid, Adhya. 3.
4.
Drupad supports Satyaki. Drupad
agrees to send his Purohit as a messanger—Ibid, Adhya. 4.
5.
Krishna supports Drupad and goes to Dwarka. Kings invited
by Drupad and Virat arrive. Similarly Kings invited by Duryodhan arrive.—lhid. Adhva. 5.
6.
Drupada instructs his purohit
how to speak in the assembly and deal with the issue.—Ibid Adhya. 6.
7.
Arjuna and Duryodhana both
go to Dwarka to ask for his aid in the war. He said I will
help you both. I can give my army to one and I can join one singly. Choose what you want. Duryodhan chose the army. Arjuna choose Krishna.—Ibid Adhya. 7.
8.
Coming of Shalya to the Pandavas
with alarge army. Duryodhan thinks him lower. Meeting of Shalya and Pandavas. Pandavas
request Shalya to discourage Kama in the war. Agreement of Shalya.— Ibid. Adhya.
8.
9.
Adhya. 9—Irrelevant. 1
10.
Adhya. 10—Irrelevant.
11.
Adhya. II—Irrelevant.
12.
Adhya. 12—Irrelevant.
13.
Adhya. 13—Irrelevant.
14.
Adhya. 14—Irrelevant.
15.
Adhya. 15—Irrelevant.
16.
Adhya. 16—Irrelevant.
17.
Adhya. 17—Irrelevant.
18.
Adhya. 18—Irrelevant.
19.
Adhya—Satyaki comes to Pandvas
with his army and Bhagadatta went to Duryodhana.
20.
Adhya. 20—The Purohit of Drupada enters the Kauravas
Sabha. The Purohit said that the Pandvas are prepared to part evil deeds of the
Kauravas and make a compromise with them. He told them that the Pandavas have a large army
yet they wish to compromise.
21.
Adhya. 21—Bhishma supports the Purohit. Kama objects.
Dispute between Bhishma and Kama. Dhratrarashtra suggests
that Sanjaya be sent for negotiation on their behalf.
22.
Adhya. 22—Dhratrarashtra sends Sanjaya to go to the Pandvas and give his blessings
and say what you think best for the occasion and which will not advance enmity between the
two.
23.
Adhya. 23—Sanjaya's going to the Pandvas.
24.
Adhya. 24—Conversation betwen Sanjaya and Yudhistira.
25.
Adhya. 25—Sanjaya condemns war.
26.
Adhya. 26—Dharma says 'I
am prepared to compromise if the Kauravas give us our Kingdom of Indraprastha.
27.
Adhya. 27—It is Adharma
to kill Gurujan and obtain a Kingdom. If the Kauravas refuse to
give you any kingdom without war you had better live by begging in the Kingdom of Vrishni and Andhakas.
28.
Adhya. 28—Says, Dharma
Blame us Sanjaya if you think we
have
acted or acting against Dharma. Sanjaya says I want Swadharma
or
Sama.
29.
Adhya. 29—Krishna's address to Sanjaya why war is legitimate
and
asks him to go and tell his views to Dhratarashtra.
30.
Adhya. 30—Sanjaya returns to Kauravas and tells Duryodhana
to
war. Duryodhan either to return Indraprastha
to the Pandavas or
be
ready for war.
31. Adhya. 30—Sanjaya tells Duryodhan to live and let live.
If he
cannot
give Indraprastha let him give us five villages.
32.
Adhya. 31—Sanjaya reaches Dratrarashtra at night and
tells
him
I will give you the message of Dharma in the morning.
33.
Adhya. 32—Dhratarashtra is uneasy and wants to know the
message
Sanjaya brought. So he sends for Sanjaya immediately.
Sanjaya
gives him the message and says settle the dispute by g:iving
them
their share of the Kingdom.
34.
Adhya. 34—Dhratarashtra calls for Vidura and asks his
advice.
His
advice is, give the Pandavas their portion of the Kingdom.
35.
Adhya. 35—Irrelevant.
36.
Adhya. 36—Irrelevant. Vidur says make the two sides
friends.
37.
Adhya. 37—Irrelevant.
38.
Adhya 38—Irrelevant.
39.
Adhya. 39—Dhratarashtra tells Vidura I cannot give up
Duryodhan
although he is bad.
40.
Adhya. 40—Vidura describes Chaturvarna.
41.
Adhya. 41—Dhratarashtra asks Vidur about Brahma. He says I
can't
because I am a Shudra. Then comes Sanat-Sujata.
42.
Adhya. 42—Conversation between Dhratarashtra & Sanat
43.
Adhya. 43—Dialogue between Sanat Sujat and
Dhratarashtra
on
the same subject.
44.
Adhya. 44—Sanat Sujata on Brahma Vidya.
45.
Adhya. 45—Sanat Sujata preaches yoga.
46.
Adhya. 46—Sanat Sujat on Atma.
47.
Adhya. 47—Kauravas come to the Sabha to hear the message
brought
by Sanjaya.
48.
Adhya. 48—Sanjaya delivers the message. (Particularly that part
which
was given by Arjuna?)
49.
Adhya. 49—Praise of Arjuna & Krishna by Bhishma.
Kama
gets
angry. Drona supports Bhisma
and advices compromise.
50.
Adhya. 50—Dhratarashtra asks Sanjaya who are the allies of
the
Pandvas & their strength. Sanjaya taunts, gets up
answers.
51.
Adhya. 51—Dhratarashtra
thinks of the prowess of Bhismna and sighs.
52.
Adhya. 52—Dhratarashtra thinks of the prowess of Arjuna
and sighs.
53.
Adhya. 53—Dhratarashtra thinks of the prowess of Dharma and
his friends. He tells his sons to compromise with the Pandavas.
54.
Adhya. 54—Sanjaya predicts the defeat of the Kauravas.
55.
Adhya. 55—Duryodhan says Pandavas cannot defeat us
because our forces are greater.
56.
Adhya. 56—Sanjaya describes the disposition of the army made by the Pandavas.
57.
Adhya. 57—Sanjaya describes how Pandavas have designed to kill the warriors of the Kauravas. Duryodhan says he is not affraid
of the Pandvas defeating the Kauravas
who have a larger army.
58.
Adhya. 58—Dhratarashtra tells Duryodhan not to fight.
Duryodhan takes oath not to swerve from battle. Dhratarashtra weeps.
59.
Adhya. 59—Dhratarashtra tells Sanjaya to tell him what conversation took place
between Krishna & Arjuna.
60.
Adhya. 60—Dhratarashtra tells Duryodhan that the Devas
will help the Pandavas and will ruin the Kauravas.
61.
Adhya. 61—Duryodhan says he is not afraid of that.
62.
Adhya. 62—Kama says he alone is capable of killing Arjuna.
63.
Adhya. 63—Duryodhan says he is fighting relying on
Kama & not on Bhishma, Drona
etc.
64.
Adhya. 64—Vidura tells Duryodhan give up enmity.
65.
Adhya. 65—Dratarashtra admonishes Duryodhan.
66.
Adhya. 66—Sanjaya tells Dratarashtra the message of Arjuna.
67.
Adhya. 67—The kings who had assembled in the hall of the Kauravas return to their
homes. Vyas and Gandhari
come with Vidur. Vyas told Sanjaya to tell Dhratarashtra
every thing he knows about the real Swarup of Krishna &
Arjuna.
68.
Adhya. 68—Sanjaya tells Dhratarashtra about Krishna.
69.
Adhya. 69—Dhratarashtra tells Duryodhan to surrender to Krishna. Refusal of
Duryodhan. Gandhari abuses Duryodhan.
70.
Adhya 70—Different names of Krishna & their origin.
71.
Adhya 71—Dhratarashtra surrenders to Krishna.
72.
Adhya. 72—Conversation between Yudhistira and Krishna.
Yudhistir says Sanjaya told him not to rely on
Dhratarashtra. Yudhistir
stresses the importance of
property Speaks of (Kshatradharma) & the necessity of
observing it Krishna proposes to go to the Kauravas. Yudhistir does not like the idea but
says to what you think is the best.
73.
Adhya. 73—Krishna tells Dharma
the secret which has in mind. Don't use soft speech with the Pandvas
tells Krishna to Dharma. There are plenty of reasons why you should not make any
compromise with the Kauravas. Emphasizes how the Kauravas disgraced Draupadi. Therefore
Oh ; Dharma do not hesitate to kill them.
74.
Adhya. 74—Bhishma tells Krishna to use soft speech
with the Kauravas.
75.
Adhya. 75—Krishna redicules Bhima.
76.
Adhya. 76—Bhima makes up his mind to fight.
77.
Adhya. 77—Krishna tells Bhima the difference between Daiva and Paurush.
78.
Adhya. 78—Arjuna tells Krishna to adopt Shama—failing war can be considered.
79.
Adhya. 79—Krishna's talk to Arjun. I will try to bring
about a settlement by peace. If that is not possible be ready for war. I will not
communicate to Duryodhan Dharma's
willingness to accept five villages.
80.
Adhya. 80—Nakul tells Krishna to do the best.
81.
Adhya. 81—Sahadev meets Krishna and tells him to bring
about a war with the Kauravas. Satyaki said that all
warriors assembled here agree with the view of Sahadeo.
82.
Adhya. 82—Draupadi meets Krishna & tells him that she will not be satisfied
unless Duryodhan is punished. Krishna gives her assurance.
83.
Adhya. 83—Last meeting between Arjuna and Krishna. Arjuna makes the best effort for Shama. Yudhishtir
tells Krishna to give assurances to Kunti. Krishna starts
on his mission.
84.
Adhya. 84—Good & Bad omens to Krishna on his way to Hastinapura.
85.
Adhya. 85—Duryodhana creates Resting places for
Krishna's journey to Hastinapur. Krishna arrives in
Hastinapura.
86.
Adhya. 86—Dhratarashtra tells Vidura what gifts are to be offered to krishna.
87.
Adhya. 87—Vidur tells Dhratarashtra that he cannot
separate Krishna from the Pandavas.
88.
Adhya. 88—Duryodhan says Krishna is worship. But this is not the time to worship him.
Bhishma tells Duryodhan to make a compromise with Pandavas. Duryodhan desires to look up
Krishna. Bhishma's strong opposition to Duryodhana.
89.
Adhya. 89—Krishna's entry into Hastinapur. Meeting with Dhratarashtra. His stay with
Vidura.
90.
Adhya. 90—Meeting between Kunti and Krishna—Kunti's
sorrow. Krishna consoles her. Kunti tells Krishna— (1)
Tell my sons to fight for their kingdom. (2) I am sorry for Draupadi.
91.
Adhya. 91—Kauravas
invite Krishna to dinner. Krishna's refusal. Krishna goes for meal to Vidur.
92.
Adhya. 92—Vidur tells Krishna that he does not like his going among the Kauravas.
93.
Adhya. 93—Krishna tells Vidura not all the Kauravas
can hurt him. I have come only because Shama is Punnyakarak.
94.
Adhya. 94—Krishna enters the assembly Hall of the Kauravas.
95.
Adhya. 95—Krishna's address to the Assembly. He told them pandavas
are ready for both peace as well as war. Give them half their kingdom.
96.
Adhya. 96—Jamadgni tells a story against arrogance.
97.
Adhya. 97-105—Matali Akhyan.
98.
Adhya. 106—Narada's advice to Duryodhana.
99.
Adhya. 106-123— Galava Akhyan.
100.
Adhya. 124—Dratarashtra tells Krishna to advise
Duryodhana.
101.
Adhya. 125—Bhishma's advice to Duryodhan.Drona's support. Vidura's
condemnation of Duryodhana. Dhratarashtra's advice.
102.
Adhya. 126—Bhishma & Drona
advice Duryodhana a second time.
103.
Adhya. 127—Duryodhana announces not to give anything to the Pandavas.
104.
Adhya. 128—Krishna condemns Duryodhana. Duryodhan leaves
the Assembly. Dushyasana's speech. Krishna warns Bhishma.
104.
Adhya. 129—Dhratarashtra asks Vidur to bring Gandhari to the Assembly. Duryodhan comes back—Gandhari
asks him to give half the Kingdom to Pandavas.
104.
Adhya. 130—Duryodhana leaves the assembly. His intention to kill Krishna. Satyaki informs Dhratarashtra of this secret plot. Srikrishna's speech. Dhratarashtra calls back Duryodhana to
the assembly, warns him. Vidur's condemnation.
105.
Adhya. 131—Bhagwana's
Vishwarup Darshan
Dhratarashtra gets Divya
Chakshu? Krishna leaves the assembly and goes to.
Kunti.
106.
Adhya. 132—Krishna tells Kunti what happened in the assembly. Kunti tells Krishna war
is natural to Kshatriyas. There is no better Dharma than that.
107.
Adhya. 133—Kunti tells Krishna the story of Vidula to
reinforce her point.
108.
Adhya. 134—Vidula's story.
109.
Adhya. 135—Vidula's story.
110.
Adhya. 136—Vidula's story.
III.
Adhya. 137—Kunti's
advice to her sons. Krishna's advice to Kama and his departure to Upapalavya Nagari.
112.
Adhya. 138—Advice to Duryodhana by Bhishma & Drona.
113.
Adhya. 139—Bhishma's
sorrow. Drona again advises Duryodhana.
114.
Adhya. 140—Conversation between Dhratarashtra and Sanjaya.
Krishna advices Kama.
115.
Adhya. 141—Kama's reply to Krishna.
116.
Adhya. 142—Krishna's assurance to Kama that the Pandava's will
win.
117.
Adhya. 143—Kama sees bad omens. His determination to finish
Pandavas. His going home.
118.
Adhya. 144—Conversation between Vidura and Pratha. Knows Duryodhana is determined to fight. Kunti's
sorrow. Her wish to tell Kama his origin. Kunti goes to the
bank of the river.
119.
Adhya. 145—Kunti meets Kama and tells him his origin and request him to join the
Pandavas.
120.
Adhya. 146—Surya supports the proposal of Kunti. Kama
rejects it. Promises to save all the Pandavas except Arjuna.
121.
Adhya. 147—Krishna goes to Pandavas. Yudhistir asks
what happened in the Kaurava Sabha.
122.
Adhya. 147, 148, 149, 150—Krishna relates the whole story.
123.
Adhya. 151—Appointment of Senapati for the Pandavas
Army. Entry of Pandava's Army in Kurushetra.
124.
Adhya. 152—Description of Pandavas arrangement for supply to the Army.
125.
Adhya. 153—Arrangement on Kaurava's side. Our army
must enter Kurushetra tomorrow early morning.
126.
Adhya. 154—Dharma's fear of fall from his moral
rectitude by going to war. Krishna satisfied him. Arjuna said you must fight.
127.
Adhya. 155—Description of Duryodhan's army.
128.
Adhya. 156—Bhishma is made Senapati of the Kaurava's army. Kama is offended. His
decision not to take command till Bhishma is dead. Kaurava's Army enters Kurushetra.
129.
Adhya. 157—Krishna becomes commander of Pandava's Army.
130.
Balrarn goes on Pilgrimage saying I do not like the Kauravas destroyed.
131.
Adhya. 158—Rukmi neither wanted by Arjuna nor by
Duryodhana goes home.
132.
Adhya. 159—Conversation between
Sanjaya and Dhratarashtra. He
blames Dhratarashtra.
133.
Adhya. 160—Pandava's
Army on the bank of the Hiranyavati
river. Duryodhan sends offensive messages to Pandavas and Krishna saying fight if you can.
134.
Adhya. 161. Uluka goes with the messages.
135.
Adhya. 162—Angry Pandavas send back angry messages. They give order that the war will
start tomorrow.
Brahmins
Versus Kshatriyas
This
manuscript consists of 43 foolscap typed pages. All the loose pages are tagged. The
original title, 'Brahmins and Kshatriyas and the
Counter-Revolution ' has been modified in Dr. Ambedkar's hand-writing as 'Brahmins
Versus Kshatriyas ' on the title page. The essay seems to
be complete.—Editors.
The
sacred literature of the Hindus contains many cases of conflicts between the Brahmins and
the Kshatriyas and even of sanguinary wards between the two.
The
first case reported was that of the King Vena. Vena was a Kshatriya
King. His conflict with the Brahmins has been referred to in various authorities. The
following account is taken from the Harivansa.
"[f53]There
was formerly a Prajapati (lord of creatures), a protector
of righteousness, called Anga, of the race of Atrai, and resembling him in power. His son was the Prajapati
Vena, who was but indifferently skilled in duty, and was born of Sunitha, the daughter of Mrityu.
This son of the daughter of Kala (Death), owing to the
taint derived from his maternal grand-father, threw his duties behind his back, and lived
in covetousness under the influence of desire. This king established an irreligious system
of conduct ; transgressing the ordinances of the Veda, he
was devoted to lawlessness. In his reign men lived without study of the sacred books and
without the Vashatkara, and the gods had no some-libations
to drink at sacrifices."
No
sacrifice or oblation shall be offered,—such was the ruthless determination of that
Prajapati, as the time of his destruction approached. 'I', he declared, 'am the object,
and the performer of sacrifice, and the sacrifice itself;
it is to me that sacrifice should be presented, and oblations offered.' This transgressor of the rules of duty, who arrogated to
himself what was not his due, was then addressed by all the great Rishis, headed by Marichi : "We are about to consecrate ourselves for a ceremony
which shall last for many years; practise not
unrighteousness, of Vena ; this is not the eternal rule of
duty. Thou art in every deed a Prajapati of Atri's race and thou hast engaged to protect thy subject. `The foolish Vena, ignorant of what was right, laughingly answered those great Rishis who had so addressed
him: "Who but myself is the ordainer of duty? or whom ought I to obey? Who
on earth equals me in sacred knowledge, in process, in austere fervour, in truth? Ye who
are deluded and senseless know not that I am the source of all beings and duties. Hesitate
not to believe that I, if I willed, could turn up the earth, or deluge it with water, or
close up heaven and earth.' When owing to his delusion and
arrogance Vena could not be governed, then the mighty Rishis becoming licensed, seized the
vigorous and struggling king, and rubbed his left thigh. From this thigh, so rubbed, was
produced a black man, very short in stature, who, being alarmed, stood with joined hands.
Seeing that he was agitated, Atri said to him 'Sit down' (Nishida). He became the founder of the race of the Nishadas, and also progenitor of the Dhivaras (Fishermen), who sprang from the corruption of Vena.'
The
second case is that of Pururavas. Pururavas is another Kshatriya
King, son of Ila and grandson of Manu
Vaivasvata. He came in conflict with the Brahmans the following account of which appears in the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata :
"
[f54]Subsequently
the wise Pururavas was born of lla who, as we have heard was both his father and his
mother. Ruling over thirteen islands of the ocean, and surrounded by beings who were all
superhuman, himself a man of great renown, Pururavas, intoxicated by his prowess, engaged
in a conflict with the Brahmans, and robbed them of their jewels, although they loudly
remonstrated. Sanatkumara came from Brahma's heaven, and
addressed to him an admonition, which however, he did not regard. Being then straightway
cursed by the incenses Rishis, he perished, this covetous monarch, who, through piece of
power, had lost his understanding." The third and a somewhat serious conflict was
that between King Nahusha and the Brahmins. Nahusha is the grandson of Pururavas. The story is told in two
places in the Mahabharata once in the Vanaparvan and a
second time in the Udyogaparvan. The following account is
taken from the Udyogaparvan of the Mahabharata:
"
[f55]After
his slaughter of the demon Vritta, Indra became alarmed at the idea of having taken the life of a
Brahman (for Vritta was regarded as such) and hid himself
in the waters. In consequence of the disappearance of the king of the gods, all affairs,
celestial as well as terrestrial, fell into confusion. The Rishis
and gods then applied to Nahusha
to be their king. After the first excusing himself on the plea of want of power, Nahusha
at length, in compliance with their solicitations, accepted the high function. Upto the period of his elevation he had led a virtuous life,
but he now became addicted to amusement and sensual pleasure, and even aspired to the
possession of Indrani, Indra's
wife, whom he had happened to see. The queen resorted to the Angiras
Vrihaspati, the preceptor of the gods, who engaged to
protect her. Nahusha was greatly incensed on hearing of this interference ; but the gods endeavoured to pacify him, and pointed out the
immorality of appropriating another person's wife. Nahusha, however, would listen to no
remonstrance, and insisted that in his adulterous designs
he was no worse than Indra himself."
"The
renowned Ahalya, a rishi's
wife, was formerly corrupted by Indra in her husband's lifetime. Why was he not prevented by you? And many barbarous acts, and unrighteous deeds, and
frauds were perpetrated of old by Indra; Why was he not prevented by you?" The gods,
urged Nahusha, then went to bring Indrani; but Vrihaspati would not give her up. At his
recommendation, however, she solicited Nahusha for some delay, till she should ascertain
what had become of her husband. This request was granted." Indrani now went in search
of her husband ; and by the help of Upasruti (the goddess of night and revealer
of secrets) discovered him existing in a very subtile form in the stem of a lotus growing
in a lake situated in a continent within an ocean north of the Himalayas. She made known
to him the wicked intentions of Nahusha, and entreated him to exert his power, rescue her
from danger, and resume his dominion. Indra declined any immediate interposition on the
plea of Nahusha's superior strength ; but suggested to his wife a device by which the usurper
might be hurled from his position. She was recommended to
say to Nahusha that "if he would visit her on a celestial vehicle borne by Rishis,
she would with pleasure submit herself to him."
"I
desire for thee, king of the gods, a vehicle hitherto unknown, such as neither Vishnu, nor
Rudra, nor the Asuras, nor the Rakshases
employ. Let the eminent Rishis, all united, bear thee, lord, in a car: this idea pleases
me." Nahusha receives favourably this appeal to his vanity, and in the course of his
reply thus gives utterance to his self-congratulation :
"He is a personage of no mean prowess who makes the Munis
his bearers. I am a fervid devotee of great might, lord of the past, the future, and the
present. If I were angry the world would no longer stand ;
on me everything depends.......... Wherefore, 0 goddess, I shall, without doubt, carry out
what you propose. The seven Rishis, and all the Brahman-rishis, shall carry me. Behold, beautiful goddess, my
majesty and my prosperity." The narrative goes on :
"Accordingly this wicked being, irreligious, violent, intoxicated by the force of
conceit, and arbitrary in his conduct, attached to his car the Rishis who submitted to his
command, and compelled them to bear him." Indrani then
again resorts to Vrihaspati, who assures her that vengeance
will soon overtake Nahusha
for his presumption, and promises that he will himself perform a sacrifice with a view to
the destruction of the oppressor, and the discovery of Indra's
lurking place. Agni is then sent to discover and bring Indra to Vrihaspati ; and the
latter, on Indra's arrival, informs him of all that had
occurred during his absence. While Indra, with Kuvera, Yama, Soma and Varuna was devising means for the destruction of Nahusha, the
sage Agastya came up, congratulated Indra on the fall of
his rival, and proceeded to relate how it had occurred :
"Wearied
with carrying the sinner Nahusha the eminent divine-rishis,
and the spotless Brahman-rishis, asked that divine
personage Nahusha (to solve) a difficulty; "Dost thou, O Vasava,
most excellent of conquerors, regard as authoritative or not those Brahmana texts which are recited at the immolation of kine? " 'No', replied Nahusha, whose
understanding was enveloped in darkness. The Rishis rejoined :
'Engaged in unrighteousness, thou attainest not unto
righteousness : these texts, which were formerly uttered by
great Rishis, are regarded by us as authoritative.`Then
(proceeds Agastya) disputing with the Munis, Nahusha,
impelled by unrighteousness, touched me on the head with his foot. In consequence of this
the king's glory was smitten and his prosperity departed. When he had instantly become
agitated and oppressed with fear, I said to him, 'Since
thou, O fool, contemnest that sacred text, always held in
honour, which has been composed by former sages, and employed by Brahman-rishis, and has
touched my head with thy foot, and employest the
Brahma—like the irresistible Rishis as bearers to carry thee,—therefore, shorn
of thy lusture, and all thy
merit exhausted, sink down, sinner, degraded from heaven to earth. For ten thousand years
thou shalt crawl in the form of a huge serpent. When that
period is completed, thou shalt again ascend to heaven. `So
fell that wicked wretch from the sovereignty of the gods. Happily, 0 Indra, we shall now prosper, for the enemy of the Brahmans has been smitten.
Take possession of the three worlds, and protect their inhabitants, O husband of Sachi (Indrani) subduing thy
senses, overcoming thine enemies, and celebrated by the great Rishis."
The fourth case is of King Nimi. Nimi was one of the sons of
Ikshvaku. The facts of his conflict with the Brahmans are
related in the Vishnu Purrana which says :
"[f56]Nimi
had requested the Brahman Rishi
Vashistha to officiate at a sacrifice, which was to last a
thousand years. Vashistha in reply pleaed a pre-engagement to Indra for
five hundred years, but promised to return at the end of that period. The king made no
remark, and Vashistha went away, supposing that he had assented to his arrangement. On his
return, however, the priest discovered that Nimi had retained Gautama (who was, equally with Vashistha, a Brahmin-rishi)
and others to perform the sacrifice ; and being incensed at
the neglect to give him notice of what was intended, he cursed the king, who was then
asleep, to lose his corporeal form. When Nimi awoke and learnt that he had been cursed
without any previous warning, he retorted by uttering a similar curse on Vashistha, and
then died. Nimi's body was emblamed.
At the close of the sacrifice which he had begun, the gods,
were willing, on the intercession of the priests, to restore him to life, but he declined
the offer; and was placed by the deities, according to his desire, in the eyes of all
living creatures. It is in consequence of this that they are always opening and shutting (nimisha means "The
twinkling of the eye").
The fifth case relates to the conflict between Vashishtha and Vishvamitra.
Vashishtha was a Brahmin priest. Vishavamitra was a Kshatriya. His great ambition was to become a Brahmin. The
following episode reported from the Ramayana explains the
reasons why he became anxious to become a Brahmin.
"[f57]There
was formerly, we are told, a king called Kusa, son of Prajapati, who had a son called Kusanabha,
who was father of Gadhi, the father of Vishvamitra. The
latter ruled the earth for many thousand years. On one occasion, when he was making a
circuit of the earth, he came to Vashishtha's hermitage,
the pleasant abode of many saints, sages, and holy devotees, where, after all first
declining, he allowed himself to be hospitability
entertained with his followers by the son of Brahma. Vishvamitra, however, coveting the wonderous cow, which had supplied all the dainties of the
feast, first of all asked that she should be given to him in exchange for a hundred
thousand common cows, adding that "she was a gem, that gems were the property of the
King, and, therefore, the cow owas his by right." On
this price being refused, the King advances immensely in his offers, but all without
effect. He then proceeds very ungratefully, and tyrannically, it must be allowed—-to
have the cow removed by force, but she breaks
away from his attendants, and rushes back to her master, complaining that he was deserting
her. He replies that he was not deserting her, but that the king was much more powerful
than he. She answers, 'Men do not ascribe strength to a Kshatriya : the Brahmans are stronger. The strength of Brahmins is divine, and
superior to that of Kshatriyas. Thy strength is
immeasurable. Vishvamitra, though of great vigour, is not
more powerful than thou. Thy energy is invincible. Commission me, who have been acquired
by thy Brahmanical power, and I will destroy the pride, and
force, and attempt of this wicked prince." She accordingly by her bellowing creates hundred of Pahalvas,
who destroy the entire host of Vishvamitra, but are slain by him in their turn. Sakas and Yavanas, of great
power and valour, and well armed, were then produced, who
consumed the king's soldiers, but were routed by him. The cow then calls into existence by
her bellowing, and from different parts of her body, other warriors of various tribes, who
again destroyed Vishvamitra's entire army, foot soldiers,
elephants, horses, chariots, and all. A hundred of the monarch's sons, armed with various
weapons, then rushed in great fury on Vashishtha, but were
all reduced to ashes in a moment by the blast of that sage's mouth. Vishvamitra, being
thus utterly vanquished and humbled, appointed one of his sons to be regent, and travelled
to the Himalaya, where he betook to austerities, and thereby obtained a vision of Mahadeva, who at his desire revealed to him the science of
arms in all its branches, and gave him celestial weapons with which, elated and full of
price, he consumed the hermitage of Vashishtha, and put its inhabitants to flight.
Vashishtha
then threatens Vishvamitra and uplifts his Brahmanical mace. Vishvamitra, too, raises his
fiery weapon and calls out to his adversary to stand. Vashishtha bids him to show his
strength and boasts that he will soon humble his pride. He asks: "What comparison is
there between a Kshatriya's might and the might of a Brahman? Behold, thou contemptible Kshatriya, my divine Brhmanical power.' The dreadful
fiery weapon uplifted by the son of Gadhi was then quenched
by the rod of the Brahman, as fire is by water." Many and various other celestial
missiles, as the nooses of Brahma, Kala (Time), and Varuna, the discuss of Vishnu,
and the trident of Shiva, were hurled by Vishvamitra at his antagonist, but the son of Brahma swallowed
them up in his all-devouring mace. Finally, to the intense consternation of all the gods,
the warrior shot off the terrific weapon of Brahma ; but
this was equally ineffectual against the Brahmanical sage. Vashishtha had now assumed a
direful appearance. "Jets of fire mingled with smoke
darted from the pores of his body ; the Brahmanical mace blazed in his hand like a smokeless mundane conflagration, or
a second sceptre of Yama." Being appeased, however, by
the munis, who proclaimed his superiority to his rival, the
sage stayed his vengeance ; and Vishvamitra exclaimed with a groan: "Shame on a Kshatriya's strength : the
strength of a Brahman's might alone is strength ; by the single Brahmanical mace all my weapons have been
destroyed."
No
alternative now remains to the humilated monarch, but
either to acquiesce in this help less inferiority, or to work out his own elevation to the
Brahmanical order. He embraces the latter alternative : " Having pondered well this defeat, I shall betake
myself, with composed senses and mind, to strenuous austere fervour, which shall exalt me
to the rank of a Brahman."Intensely vexed and mortified, groaning and full of hatred against his enemy, he
travelled with his queen to the south, and carried his resolution into effect. At the end
of a thousand years Brahma appeared, and announced that he had conquered the heaven of
royal sages (rajarshis): and, in consequence of his austere
fervour, he was recognised as having attained that rank."
The
conflict seems to have begun in the reign of King Sudas who belonged to the line
of Ikshavaku. Vashishtha was the hereditary priest of King
Sudas. For some reason which is not very clearly stated Sudas appointed Vishvamitra as his
family priest. This brought about a conflict between Vishvamitra and Vashishtha. This
conflict once started raged on for a long time.
The
conflict between the two took a peculiar turn. If Vishvamitra was involved in a dispute
Vashishtha came into the fray and sided with his opponent. If Vishvamitra was involved in
dispute Vashishtha entered into fray and sided with Vishvamitra as opponent. It was a case
of one persecuting the other.
The
first such episode is that of Satyavrata otherwise called Trishanku. The story as told in the Harivamsha
is as follows :
"
[f58]Meanwhile
Vashishtha, from the relation subsisting between the King (Satyavrata's
father) and himself, a disciple and spiritual preceptor, governed the city of Ayodhya, the country, and the interior apartments of the royal
palace. But Satyavrata, whether through folly or the force
of destiny, cherished constantly an increased indignation against Vashishtha, who for a (proper) reason had not interposed to
prevent his exclusion from the royal power by his father. 'The
formulas of the marriage ceremonial are only binding,' said
Satyavrata, 'when the seventh step has been taken, and this
had not been done when I seized the damsel : still
Vashishtha, who knows the precepts of the law, does not come to my aid.' Thus Satyavrata was incensed in his mind against
Vashishtha, who however, had acted from a sense of what was right. Nor did Satyavrata
understand (he propriety of) that silent penance imposed upon him by his father..... When he had supported this arduous rite, (the supposed
that) he had redeemed his family position. The venerable muni
Vashishtha did not, however, (as has been said) prevent his father from setting him aside,
but resolved to install his son as King. When the powerful prince Satyavrata had endured
the penance for twelve years, he beheld, when he was without flesh to eat, the milch cow of Vashishtha which yielded all objects of desire ; and under the influence of anger ;
delusion, and exhaustion,
distressed by hunger, and failing in the ten duties he slew.......... and both partook of
her flesh himself, and gave it to Vishvamitra's sons to
eat. Vashishtha hearing of this, became incensed against him",
and imposed on his the name of Trisanku as he had committed
three sins. On his return home, Vishvamitra was gratified
by the support which his wife had received, and offered Trisanku the choice of a boon.
When this proposal was made, Trisanku chose the boon of ascending bodily to heaven. All
apprehension from the twelve year's drought being now at an end, the muni (Vishvamitra)
installed Trisanku in his father's kingdom, and offered sacrifice
on his behalf. The mighty Kausika then, in spite of the
resistance of the gods and of Vashishtha,[f59]
exalted
the king alive to heaven." 2. As stated in the Harivamsa :
" [f60] In consequence of the wickedness which had been committed, Indra did not rain for a period of twelve years. At that time Vishvamitra had left his wife and children and gone to practise austerties on the sea-shore. His wife, driven to extremity by want. was on the point of selling her second son for a hundred cows, in order to support the others ; but this arrangement was stopped by the interventions of Satyavrata, who liberated the son when bound, and maintained the family by providing them with the flesh of wild animals ; and according to his father's injunction, consecrated himself for the performance of a silent penance for twelve years." The next episode in which they appear on opposite sides is that of Harishchandra the son of Trisanku. The story is told in the Vishnu Purana and in the Markendeya Purana. This is how the story runs:
"On
one occasion, when hunting the king heard a sound of female lamentation which proceeded,
it appears, from the sciences who were becoming mastered by
the austerely fervid sage Vishvamitra, in a way they had
never been before by anyone else ;
and were consequently crying out in alarm at his superiority. In fulfilment of his
duty as a Kshatriya to defend the weak, and inspired by the
god Ganesha, who had entered into him, Harishchandra
exclaimed. "What sinner is this who is binding fire in
the hem of his garment, while, I, his lord. am present,
resplendent with force and fiery vigour?' He shall to-day
enter on his long sleep, pierced in all his limbs by arrows, which, by their discharge
from my bow, illuminate all the quarters of the firmament." Vishvamitra was provoked
by this address. In consequence of his wrath the Sciences instantly perished, and
Harishchandra, trembling like the leaf of an Asvattha tree.
submissively represented that he had merely done his duty as a king, which he defined as
consisting in the bestowl of gifts on eminent Brahmins and
other persons of slender means, the protection of the timid, and war against enemies.
Vishvamitra hereupon demands a gift as a Brahman intent
upon receiving one. The king offers him whatsoever he may ask :
Gold, his own son, wife. body, like kingdom, good fortune. The saint first requires the
present for the Rajasuya sacrifice. On this being promised,
and still more offered, he asks for the empire of the whole earth, including everything but Harishchandra himself, his wife and son. and his
virtue which
follows its posses or
wherever he goes." "Harishchandra joyfully agrees. Vishvamitra then requires him to strip off all
his ornaments, to clothe
himself in the bark of trees, and to quit the kingdom with his wife Saviya
(Taramati) and his son. When he is departing the sage stops him and demands payment of his yet unpaid sacrificial fee. The king replies that he has only
the persons of his wife his son, and himself left.
Vishvamitra insists that he must nevertheless pay: and that "unfulfilled
promises of gifts to Brahmans bring destruction." The
unfortunate prince, after being threatened with a curse, engages to make the payment in a month ; and commences his
journey with a wife unused to such fatigues, amid the universal lamentations of his
subjects. While he lingers, listening to their affectionate remonstrances against his
desertion of his kingdom, Vishvamitra,
comes up and being incensed at the delay and the King's apparent hesitation, strikes the
queen with his staff, as she is dragged on by her husband. Harishchandra
then proceeded with his wife and little son to Benares, imagining that this divine city,
as the special property of Siva, could not be possessed by any mortal. Here he found the
relentless Vishvamitr waiting for him, and ready to press
his demand for the payment of his sacrificial gift, even before the expiration of the full
period of grace. In this extremity Saivya the queen
suggests with a sobbing voice that her husband should sell
her. On hearing this proposal Harishchandra swoons, then recovers, utters lamentations,
and swoons again, and his wife, seeing his said condition, swoon also. While they are in a
state of unconsciousness, their famished child exclaims in distress, " O father, father, give me bread ; O mother, mother give
me food : hunger overpowers me and my tongue is parched." At this moment Vishvamitra
returns, and after recalling Harishchandra to consciousness by spinkling
water over him, again urges payment of the present. The king again swoons, and is again
restored. The sag threatens to curse him if his engagement is not fulfilled by sunset.
Being now pressed by his wife, the King agrees to sell her ading, however, "If my voice can utter such a wicked word, I do not what
the most inhuman wretches cannot perpetrate." He then goes into the city and in selfacusing language offers his queen for sale as a slave. A
rich old Brahman offers to buy her at a price corresponding
to her value, to do his household work. Seeing his mother dragged
away, the child ran after her, his eyes dimmed with tears, and crying 'mother'. The Brahman purchaser
kicked him when he came up; but he would not let
his mother go, and continued crying 'mother, mother.' The queen then said to the Brahman, ' Be so kind, my
master, as to but also this child, as without him I shall prove to thee but a useless
purchase. Be thus merciful to me in my wretchedness, unite me with my son, like a cow to
her calf." The Brahman agrees: "Take this money
and give me the boy." After the Brahman had gone out of sight with his purchases,
Vishvamitra again appeared and renewed his demands ; and when the afflicted Harishchanda offered him the small sum he had obtained by the
sale of his wife and son, he angrily replied, "If,
miserable Kshatriya, thou thinkest
this a sacrificial gift befitting my deserts, thou shall soon beheld the transcendent
power of my ardent austere fervour, of my spotless Brahmanhood of my terrible majesty, and of my holy study. Harishchandra promises an additional gift, and Vishvamitra allows him the remaining quarter of the day for
its liquidation. On the terrified and afflicted prince offering himself for sale, in order to gain the mean of meeting this cruel demand, Dharma (Righteousness) appears in the form of a hideous and
offensive Chandala, and agrees to buy him at his own price,
large or small. Harishchandra declines such a degrading servitude, and declares that he
would rather be consumed by the fire of his persecutor's curse than submit to such a fate. Vishvamitra however
again comes on the scene, asks why he does
not accept the large sum offered by the Chandala ; and,
when he pleads in excuse his descent from the solar race, threatens to fulminate a curse
against him if he does not accept that method of meeting his liability. Harishchandra
implores that he may be spared this extreme of degradation, and offers to become Vishvamitra's slave in payment
of the residue of his debt; whereupon the sage rejoins, "If
thou art my slave, then I sell thee as such to the Chandala for a hundred millions of
money."
"The
Chandala, delighted, pays down the money, and carries off Harishchandra, bound beaten,
confused and afflicted, to his own place of abode. Harishchandra is sent by the Chandala
to steal grave clothes in a cemetary and is told that he
will receive two-sixths goind to his masters, and one-sixth
to the King. In this horrid spot, and in this degrading occupation, he spent in great
misery, twelve months, which seemed to him like a hundred years. He then falls asleep and
has a series of dreams suggested by the life he had been leading. After he awoke, his wife
came to the cemetary to perform the obsequies of their son, who had died from the bite of
a serpent. At first the husband and wife did not recognize each other, from the change in
appearance which had been brought upon them by their miseries. Harishchandra however, soon
discovered from the tenor of her lamentations that it is his wife, and falls into a swoon;
as the queen does also when she recognizes her husband. When consciousness returns, they
both break out into lamentations, the father bewailing in a touching strain the loss of
his son, and the wife the degradation of the King. She then falls on his neck, embraces
him, and asks "whether all this is a dream, or a reality, as she is utterly be wildered ", and adds, that
"if it be a reality, then righteousness is unvailing
to those who practise it." After hesitating to devote himself to death on his son's
funeral pyre without receiving his master's leave, Harishchandra. resolves to do so, braving all the consequences, and consoling himself with the
hopeful anticipation: "If I have given gifts, and offered sacrifices an gratified my
religious teachers, then may I be reunited with my son and with thee (my wife) in another
world."The queen determines to die in the same manner. When Harishchandra., after placing his son's body on the funeral
pile, is meditating on the Lord Shri Narayan krishna, the supreme spirit, all the gods arrive, headed by Dharma (righteousness), and accompanied by Vishvamitra. Dharma entreats
the king to desist from his rash intention; and Indra announces
to him that he, his wife, and son have conquered heaven by their good works. Amrosia, the antidote of death,
and flowers are rained by the god from the sky ; and the king's son is restored to life
and the bloom of youth. The king, adorend with celestial
clothing and garlands, and the queen, embrace their son. Harishchandra, however declares
that he cannot go to heaven till he has received his master the Chandala's
permission, and has paid him a ransom. Dharma then reveals
to the king that it was he himself who had miraculously assumed the form of a Chandala. The king next objects that he cannot depart unless
his faithful subjects, who are shares in his merits, are allowed to acompany him to heaven, at least for one day. This request is granted by Indra; and
after Vishvamitra has inaugurated Rohitasva the king's son
to be his successor, Harishchandra, his friends and followers, all ascend in company to
heaven. Even after this great consummation, however, Vashishtha,
the family-priest of Harishchandra, hearing, at the end of a twelve years' abode in the
waters of the Ganges, an account of all that has occured,
becomes vehementaly incensed at the humiliation inflicted
on the excellent monarch, whose virtues and devotion to the gods and Brahmans he celebrates, declares that his indignation had not
been so great roused even when his own hundred sons had been slain by Vishvamitra, and in
the following words dooms the latter to be transformed into crane. Wherefore that wicked
man, enemy of the Brhmans, smitten by my curse, shall be
expelled from the society of intelligent beings, and losing his understanding shall be
transformed into a Vaka." Vishvamitra reciprocates the curse, and changes Vashishtha into a
bird of the species called Ari. In their new shapes the two
have a furious fight. the Ari being of the portentous heiht
of two thousand yojanas = 18,000 miles, and the Vaka of
3090 yojanas. The first assail each other with their wings ;
then the Vaka smites his antagonist in the same manner, while the Ari strikes with his
talons. Falling mountains, overturned by the blasts of wind raised by the flapping of
their wings, shake the whole earth, the waters of the ocean overflow, the earth itself,
thrown off its perpendicular slopes downwards patala, the
lower regions. Many creatures perish by these various convulsions. Attracted by the dire
disorder, Brahma arrives, attended by all the gods, on the spot, and command the comptants to desist from their fray. They were too fiercely infuiriated to regard this injunction; but Brahma put an end
to the conflict by restoring them to their natural forms, and conselling
them to be reconciled.
The
next episode in which they came in as opponents is connected with Ambarish King of Ayodhya.
1[f61]The
story relates that Ambarisha was engaged in performing a
sacrifice, when Indra carried away the victim. The priest
said that this ill-omened event had occurred owing to the king's had administration, and
would call for a great expiation, unless a human victim could be produced. After a long
search the royal rishi (Ambarisha) came upon the Brahman-rishi Richika, a descendent of Bhrigu, and asked
him to sell one of his sons for a victim, at the price of a hundred thousand cows. Richika
answered that he would not sell his eldest son; and his wife added that she would not sell
the youngest: eldest sons" she observed, "being
generally the favourites of their fathers, and youngest sons of their mothers." The
second son, Sunassena, then said that in that case he
regarded himself as the one who was to be sold, and desired the king to remove him. The
hundred thousand cows, with ten millions of gold pieces and heaps of jewels, were paid
down, and Sunassepa carried away. As they were passing
through Pushkara Sunassepa beheld his maternal uncle Vishvamitra who was engaged in austerities there with other rishis, threw himself into his arms, and implored his
assistance, urging his orphan friendless, and helpless state, as claims on the sage's
benevolence.
"Vishvamitra
soothed him: and pressed his own sons to offer themselves as victim in the room of
Sunassepa. This proposition met with no favour from Madhushyanda
and the other sons of the royal hermit, who answered with haughtiness and derision: "How is that thou sacrificest
thine own sons, and seekest to rescue those of others? We
look upon this as wrong, and like the eating of one's own flesh." The sage was
exceedingly wroth at this disregard of his injunction, and doomed his sons to be born in
the most degraded classes, like Vashishtha's sons, and to
eat dog's flesh, for a thousand years. He then said to Sunassepa : When thou art
bound with hallowed cords, decked with a red garland, and annointed
with unguents, and fastened to the sacrificial post of Vishnu, then address thyself to Agni, and sing these two divine verses (gathas), at the sacrifice of Ambarisha
; then shalt thou attain the
fulfilment." Being furnished with the two gathas, Sunassepa proposed at once to king Ambarisha that they should
set out for their destination. When bound at the stake to be immolated, dressed in a red
garment, " he celebrated the two gods, Indra and his younger brother (Vishnu), with the excellent
verses. The thousand-eyed (Indra) was pleased with the
secret hymn, and bestowed long life on Sunassepa." The last episode recorded in which
the two appear as opponents is connected with King Kalmashapada. The episode is recorded in the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata.
"
[f62]Kalmashapada
was a King of the race Ikshvaku. Vishvamitra
wished to be employed by him as his officiating priest; but the king preferred Vashishtha." It happened, however, that the king went out
to hunt, and after having killed a large quantity of game, he became very much fatigued,
as well as hungry and thirsty. Meeting Saktri, the eldest
of Vashishtha's hundred sons, on the road, he ordered him
to get out of his way. The priest civilly replied : "The
path is mine, 0 King; this is the immemorial law; in all observances the king must cede
the way to the Brahman." Neither party would yield,
and the dispute waxing warmer, the king struck the muni
with his whip. The muni, resorting to the usual expedient
of offended sages, by a curse doomed the king to become a man eater. "It hapened that at that
time enmity existed between Vishvamitra and Vashishtha on account of their respective
claims to be priest to Kalmashapada." Vishvamitra had followed the king; and
approached while he was disputing with Saktri. Perceiving, however, the son of his rival
Vashishtha, Vishvamitra made himself invisible, and passed
them, watching his opportunity. The king began to implore Saktri's
clemency: but Vishvamitra wishing to prevent their reconciliation, commanded a Rakshasa (a man-devouring demon) to enter into the king. Owing
to the conjoint influence of the Brahma-rishi's curse, and Vishvamitra's command, the demon obeyed the injunction.
Perceiving that his object was gained, Vishvamitra left things to take their course, and
absented himself from the country. The king having happened to meet a hungry Brahman, and
sent him, by the hand of his cook (who could procure nothing else), some human flesh to
eat, was cursed by him also to the same effect as by Saktri. The curse, being now
augmented in force, took effect, and Saktri himself was the first victim, being eaten up
by the King. The sarne fate befell all the other sons of
Vashishtha at the instigation of Vishvamitra. Perceiving Saktri to be dead, Vishvamitra
again and again incited the Rakshasa against the sons of Vashishtha; and accordingly the furious demon devoursed those of his sons who were younger than Saktri as a lion eats up the small beasts of the forest. On
hearing of the destruction of his sons by Vishvamitra, Vashishtha
supported his affliction, as the great mountain sustains the
earth. He meditated his own destruction, but never thought of exterminating the Kausikas. This divine sage hurled
himself from the summit of Meru, but fell upon the rocks as
if on a heap of cotton. Escaping alive from his fall, he entered a glowing fire in the
forest; but the fire, though fiercely blazing, not only
failed to burn him, but seemed perfectly cool. He next threw himself into the sea with a
heavy stone attached to his neck; but was cast up by the waves on the dry land. He then
went home to his hermitage; but seeing it empty and desolate, he. was again overcome by
grief and went out; and seeing the river Vipasa which was swolen by the recent rains and sweeping along many trees torn
from its banks, he conceived the design of drowning himself into its water, he accordingly
tied himself firmly with cords, and threw himself in, but the river severing his bonds,
deposited him unbound (vipasa) on dry land; whence the name of the stream, as imposed by
the sage. He afterwards saw and threw himself into the dreadful Satadru
(Sutlej), which was full of alligators, etc., and derived
its name rushing away in a hundred directions on seeing the Brahman
brilliant as fire. In consequence of this he was once more stranded; and seeing he could
not kill himself, he went back to his hermitage." There are only particular instances
of their general enmity towards each other. This general enmity was of a mortal kind so
much so that Vishvamitra wanted even to murder Vashishtha. This is related in the Shalyaparva of the Mahabharata.
Says the author of the Mahabharata :
"[f63]There
existed a great enmity, arising from rivalry in their austerities, between Vishvamitra and
the Brahman rishi Vashishtha. Vashishtha had an extensive
hermitage in Sthanutirtha, to the east of which was Vishvamitra's......... These two great ascetics were every day
exhibiting intense emulation in regard to their respective austerities. But Vishvamitra,
beholding the might of Vashishtha, was the most chagrined; and fell into deep thought. The
idea of this sage, constant in duty(!) was the following: 'This
river Sarasvati will speedily bring to me on her current
the austere Vashishtha, the most eminent of all mutterers
of prayers. When that most excellent Brahman has come, I shall most assuredly kill him.`Having thus determined, the divine sage Vishvamitra, his eyes reddened by anger, called to mind the
chief of rivers. She being thus the subject of his thoughts, became very anxious, as she
knew him to be very powerful and very irascible. Then trembling palid,
and with joined hands, the Sarasvati stood before the chief
of munis. Like a woman whose husband has been slain, she
was greatly distressed; and said to him, 'What shall I do?' The incensed muni replied, 'Bring Vashishtha hither
speedily, that I may slay him. 'The lotus-eyed goddess, join ing her hands trembled in great fear, like a creeping plant agitated by the
wind ".......... Vishvamitra, however, although he saw
her condition, repeated his command. "The Sarasvati,
who knew how sinful was his design, and that the might of Vashishtha
was unequalled, went trembling, and in great dread of being cursed by both the sages, to
Vashishtha, and told him what his rival had sa.id. Vashishtha seeing her emaciated, pale,
and anxious, spoke thus: 'Deliver thyself, O chief of
rivers; carry me unhesitatingly to Vishvamitra, lest he curse thee'. Hearing these words of the merciful sage, the Sarasvati
considered how she could act most wisely. She reflected, 'Vashishtha
has always shown me great kindness; I must seek his welfare.'
Then obsering the Kausika
sage praying and sacrificing on her brink, she regarded that as a good opportunity, and
swept away the bank by the force of her current. In this way the son of Mitra and Varuna (Vashishtha)
was carried down; and while he was bieng borne along, he
thus celebrated the river: 'Thou,
O Sarasvati, issuest from the lake of Brahma, and pervadest the whole world with thy excellent streams. Residing
in the sky, thou dischargest water into the colouds. Thou alone art all waters. By these we study.' 'Thou art nourishment,
radiance, fame, perfection, intellect, light. Thou art speech; thou art Svaha; this world is subject to thee. Thou, in fourfold form, dwellest in all creatures '..........
Beholding
Vashishtha brought near by the Sarasvati, Vishvamitra searched for a weapon with which to
make an end of him. Perceiving his anger, and dreading lest Brahmanicide
should ensue, the river promptly carried away Vashishtha in an easterly direction; thus
fulfilling the commands of both sages, but eluding Vishvamitra. Seeing Vashishtha so
carried away, Vishvamitra, impatient, and enraged by vexation, said to her : ' Since thou, O chief of rivers, hast elued me, and hast receded, roll in waves of blood acceptable
to the chief of demons," (which are fabled to gloat on blood). "The Sarasvati,
being thus cursed, flowed for a year in a stream mingled with blood. . . ..
Rakshasas came to the place of pilgrimage, where Vashishtha
had been swept away, and revealed in drinking to satiety the bloody stream in security,
dancing and laughing, as if they had conquered heaven." Some rishis who arrived at the spot some time after were horrified
to see the blood-stained water, and the Rakshasas quaffing
it, and "made the most strenuous efforts to rescue the
Sarasvati."
The
foregoing cases relate to individual conflicts between a particular Brahmin and a
particular Kshatriya. The cases which follow are cases of
class or communal conflicts between Brahmins on the one hand and the Kshatriyas on the other. They are not mere conflicts. Nor is
it correct to say that they were like communal riots. They were class wars undertaken by
one community with the avowed intention of exterminating the other root and branch. Two
such class wars of extermination have been recorded in the Mahabharat.
The first is a war of the Haihaya Kshatriyas on the Bhargava Brahmins. It occurred in the reign of the Haihaya
King Kritavirya. The following is the description of this
war in the Adiparvan of the Mahabharat.
"[f64]There
was a king named Kritavirya, by whose liberality the Bhrigu,
learned in the Vedas, who officiated as his priest, had
been greatly enriched with corn, and money. After he had gone to heaven, his descendants
were in want of money, and came to beg for a supply from the Bhrigus,
of whose wealth they were aware. Some of the latter hid their money under ground, others
bestowed it on Brahmans, being afraid of the Kshatriyas,
while others again gave these last what they wanted. It happened, however, that a
Kshatriya, while digging the ground, discovered some money buried in the house of a
Bhrigu. The Kshatriyas then assembled and saw this treasure, and, being incensed, slew in
consequence all the Bhrigus, whom they regarded with contempt, down to the children in the
womb. The widows, however, fled to the Himalaya mountains. One of them concealed her
unborn child in her thigh. The Kshatriyas, hearing of its existence from a Brahmani informant, sought to kill it; but it issued forth
from its mother's thigh with lustre, and blinded the
persecutors. After wandering about bewildered among the mountains for a time, they humbly
supplicated the mother of the child for the restoration of their sight; but she referred
them to her wonderful infant Aurva into whom the whole
Veda, with its six Vedangas, had entered, as the person who
(in retaliation of the slaughter of his relatives) had robbed them or their eye-sight, and
who alone could restore it. They accordingly had recourse to him, and their eye-sight was
restored. Aurva, however, meditated the destruction of all
living creatures, in revenge for the slaughter of the Bhrigus,
and entered on a course of austerities which alarmed both gods, asuras, and men; but his
progenitors (Pitris) themselves appeared, and sought to
turn him from his purpose by saying that they had no desire to be revenged on the Kshatriyas : It was not from
weakness that the devout Bhrigus overlooked the massacre perpetrated by the murderous Kshatriyas. When we became distressed by old age, we ourselves
desired to be slaughtered by them. The money which was buried by someone in a Bhrigu's house was placed there for the purpose of exciting
hatred, by those who wished to provoke the Kshatriyas. For
what had we, who were desiring heaven, to do with money?" They add that they hit upon
this device because they did not wish to be guilty of suicide, and concluded by calling
upon Aurva to restrain his wrath; and abstain from the sin
he was meditating, "Destroy not the Kshatriyas, O son, nor the seven worlds. Suppress thy kindled
anger which nullifies the power of austere-fervour." Aurva, however, replies that he
cannot allow his threat to remain unexecuted. His anger, unless wreaked upon some other
object, will, he says, consume himself. And he argues on grounds of justice, expediency,
and duty, against the clemency which his progenitors recommend. He is, however, persuaded
by the Pitris to throw the fire of his anger into the sea, where they say it will find
exercise in assailing the watery element, and in this way his threat will be
fulfilled." The second class war and which was also a war of extermination was declared by the Bhargava
Brahmins on the Haihaya Kshatriyas.
In this the leader of Bhargava Brahmins was one Parashuram.
The story of the birth of Parashuram is described in the Vishnu Purana
in the following terms:
"
[f65]Gadhi's
daughter Satyavati had been given in marriage to an old Brahman called Richika, of the
family of Bhrigu. In order that his wife might bear a son
with the qualities of a Brahman, Richika had prepared for her a dish of Charu (rice, barley, and pulse, with butter and milk) for her
to eat; and a similar mess for her mother, calculated to make her conceive a son with the
character of a warrior. Satyavati's mother, however,
persuaded her to exchange messes. She was blamed by her husband on her return home for
what she had done. I quote the words of the original:
"Sinful
woman, what improper deed is this that thou has done? I beheld thy body of a very terrible
appearance. Thou hast certainly eaten the Charu prepared for thy mother. This was wrong.
For into that Chari I had infused all the endowments of heriosm, vigour, and roce, whilst into thine I had introduced all these qualities
of quietude, knowledge, and patnence which constitute the
perfection of a Brahmin. Since thou hast acted in contravention of my design a son shall
be born to thee who shall live the dreadful, martial, and murderous life of a Kshatriya and thy mother's offspring shall exhibit the
peaceful disposition and conduct of a Brahman." As
soon as she had heard this, Satyavati fell down and seized
her husband's feet, and said, 'My lord, I have acted from
ignorance; show kindness to me, let me not have a son of the sort thou hast described; if
thou pleasest, let me have a grandson of that description. `Subsequently she bore Jamadagni,
and her mother gave birth to Vishvamitra. Satyavati became
the river called Kausiki. Jamadagni wedded Renuka, the daughter of Renu,
of the family of Ikshvaku; and on her he begot a son called
Parasurama." The following additional details about Parshuram's family history is given in the Venaparvan of the Mahabharata :
"
[f66]Jamadagni
and Satyavati had five sons, the youngest of whom was the repubtable
Parasurama. By his father's command he kills his mother (who by the indulgence of impure
desire, had fallen from her brevious sanctity), after the
four elder sons had refused this matricidal offen, and had in consequence been deprived of reason by their
father's curse. At Parasurama's desire however, his mother
is restored by his father to life, and his brothers to reason; and he himself is absolved
from all the guilt of murder; and obtains the boon of invincibility and long life from his
father." This second class war took place in the reign of the Haihaya king Arjuna the son of
King Kartavirya. To understand it correctly it is necessary
to devide it into two parts for there are two stages in it. The trouble began with the Brahmans claiming certain prerogatives and powers exclusively
for themselves and King—Arjuna scouting them in most contemptuous terms. As the Anushasanparvan of the Mahbharata
puts it.
"
[f67]Then
ascending his chariot glorious as the resplendent sun, he exclaimed in the intoxication of
his prowess, ' Who is like me in fortitude, courage, fame, heriosm, energy, and vigour?'
At the end of this speech a bodiless voice on the sky addressed him: 'Thou knowest not, O fool, that
a Brahman is better than a Kshatriya. It is with the help of the Brahman that the
Kshatriya rules his subjects. Arjuna answers 'If I am
pleased, I can create, or, if displeased, annihilate, living beings; and no Brahman is
superior to me in act, thought, or word. The first proposition is that the Brahmans are superior; the second that the Kshatriyas are superior: both of these thou hast stated with
their ground, but there is a difference between them. The Brahmans are dependent on the Kshatriyas, and not the Kshatriyas on the Brahmans; and the Kshatriyas
on the Brahmans; and the Kshatriyas are eaten up by the
Brahmans, who wait upon them and only make the Vedas a
pretence. Justice the protection of the people, has its seat in the Kshatriyas. From them the Brahmans derive their livelihood:
how then can the latter be superior? I always keep in subjection to myself those Brahmans,
the chief of all beings, who subsist on alms, and who have a high opinion of themselves.
For truth was apoken by that female the Gayatri in the sky. I shall subdue all those unruly Brahmans clad in hides. No one in the three worlds, god or man can hurl
me from my royal authority; wherefore I am superior to any Brahman."
On hearing this Vayu comes and says to Arjuna :
"[f68]Abandon
this sinful disposition, and to obeisance to the Brahmans. If thou shalt do them wrong, thy kingdom shall be convulsed. They will subdue thee; those powerful men will
humble thee, and expel thee from thy country' The king asks
him, 'who art thou? Vayu replies, 'I Vayu, the messenger of the gods, and tell thee what is for
thy benefit'. Arjuna rejoins, 'Oh thou displayest
to-day a great warmth of devotion to the Brahmans. But
say that a Brahman is like (any other) earth-born creature.
Or say that this most excellent Brahman is something like the wind. But fire is like the
waters, or the sun, or the sky.' Vayu then adduces various
instances in which the superiority of the Brahmins has been mainfested.
Arjuna then drops his hostility against the Brahmins and
becomes their friend. In the Anushasanparva he is reported to have said :
"[f69]
I live altogether and always for the sake of the Brahmans. I am devoted to the Brahmans,
and do obeisance to them continually. And it is through the favour of Dattatreya (A Brahman) that I have obtained all this power and
high renown, and that I have practised righteousness."
It is in the second stage that Parashuram
comes on the scene and extreminates the Kshatriyas. The story is told in the Shantiparvan in the following terms :
"[f70]
Being of a meek, pious, kind and charitable turn of mind, the valiant Arjuna thought nothing of the curse; but his sons, who were of
an arrogant and barbarous disposition, became the cause of its resulting in his death.
Without their father's knowledge they took away Jamadagni's
calf; and in consequence Parasurama attacked Arjuna and cut
off his arms." His son retaliated by killing Jamadagni.
Parashurama incensed at the slaughter of his father, having
vowed in consequence to sweep away all Kshatriyas from the
earth, seized his weapons; and slaying all the sons and grandsons of Arjuna, with
thousands of the Haihayas, he turned the earth into a mass
of ensanguined mud. Having thus cleared the earth of Kshatriyas,
he became penetrated by deep compassion and retired to the forest. After some thousands of
years had elapsed, the hero, naturally irascible, was taunted by Paravsu, the son of Raibhya and
grandson of Visvamitra, in a public assembly in these
words: 'Are not these virtuous men, Pratardana and the others, who are assembled at the sacrifice
in the city of Yayati,—are they not Kshatriyas? Thou
hast failed to execute thy threat, and vainly boastest in
the assembly. Thou has withdrawn to the mountain from fear of those valiant Kshatriyas,
while the earth has again become overrrun by hundred of
their race. `Hearing these words, Rama seized his weapons.
The hundreds of Kshatriyas who had before been spared had now grown powerful kings. These,
however, Parasurama now slew with their children, and all the numerous infants then unborn
as they came into the world. Some, however, were preserved by their mothers." Those
who are curious to know the subsequent history of the Kshatriyas might be interested in
the following extract from the Adiparvan.
"
[f71]Having
one and twenty time swept away all the Kshatriyas from the earth, the son of Jamadagni
engaged in austerities on Mahendra the most excellent of
mountains. After he had cleared the world of Kshatriyas, their widows came to the Brahmans, praying for offspring. The religious Brahmans, free
from any impulse of lust cohabited at the proper seasons with these women, who in
consequence became pregnant, and brought forth valiant Kshatriya
boys and girls, to continue the Kshatriya stock. Thus was the Kshatriya race
virtuously begotten by Brahmans on Kshatriya women, and became multiplied and long-lived,
thence arose four castes inferior to the Brahmans." These
instances of enmity were accompanied by challenges from one side to the other which shows
how high were the tempers running on both sides. The conduct of king Nimi in yoking the Brahmins to his chariot and making them
drag it like horses show how determined the Kshatriyas were
to humiliate the Brahmans. The challenges uttered by Arjuna
Kartavirya against the Brahmins indicates his determination
to level them down. The Brahmins on their side were not slow to take up this challenge and
send counter challenges to the kshatriyas not to provoke
the Brahmins. This is very clear from the way Vayu the
messenger or Ambassador of the Brahmins talks to Arjuna Kartivirya
after he had issued his challenge to the Brahmans. Vayu tells Arjuna how the Brhmans Atri made sea water
saltish by urinating in it, how Dandakas were overthrown by
the Brahmans, how the Kshatriyas of the Talajaughas were destroyed by a single Brahmin Aurva; The striking power of the Brahmins is not only superior
to that of the Kshatriya it is superior to that of the Devas and Vayu proceeds to tell Arjuna some of the victories
achieved by the Brahmins over the Devas. He tells him how Varuna
ran away with Bhadra the daughter of Soma and the wife of the Brahman
Utathya of the race of Angiras
how Utathya by his curse caused the earth to be dried up
and how Varuna as a consequence submitted to Utathya and returned his wife. He tells him how once the Devas
were conquered by the Asuras and the Danavas, how deprived
of all oblations, and stripped of their dignity they came to the earth went to the Brahmin
Agastya and applied to him for protection and how Agastya
scorched the Danavas from heaven and earth and made him fly to the South and reinstated
the Devas in their dominion. He tells Arjuna how once the Adityas
were performing a sacrifice and while engaged in it were attached by Danvas called Khalims, who came
in ten in thousands to slay them, how the Adityas went to Indra
and how Indra himself attached by the Daityas not being able to render help to the Adityas went to
the Brahmin Vashishtha for
help and how Vashishtha taking mercy on the Adityas saved
them by burning the Danavas alive. He next tells Arjuna how the Danavas once fought with
the Devas, how by enveloping them in dreadful darkness the Danavas slaughtered the Devas,
how the Devas implored the Brahmin Atri to become the moon and dispell the glown around the sun which Atri
did thereby saved the Devas from the Danvas. The last episode of Brahmin prowess which
Vayu tells Arjuna is how the Brahmin Chyavana compelled
Indra to admit the Ashwins to equal rank and drink Soma
with them as a token of equality and how when Indra refused
he took away both the earth and heaven from them and how he created a Demon Mada and put the Devas
including Indra into his mouth and how he compelled Indra to admit the Ashwins to equal rank and drink Soma
with them and how Indra ultimately surrendered to Chyavana.
Vayu
did not merely recount these exploits of the Brahmins. He did something more. Every time
he gave Arjuna an instance of the power of the Brahmins he ended by asking Arjuna pointed
questions such as "Can you tell me of any Kshatriya who was superior to him (i.e. the Brahmins hero of
the story)[f72].
"Declare
on your part, any Kshatriya who has been superior to him, "Tell me of any Kshatriya superior to Atri."
This class war between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas must have gone on for ages. In the light of this
the attitude of Manu towards this Class War comes as very
strange. Consider the following verses from the Manu Smriti
:
IV.
135. "Let him who desires prosperity, indeed, never
despise a Kshatriya, a snake, and a learned Brahmana, be
they ever so feeble."
IV.
136. "Because these three, when treated with
disrespect, may utterly destroy him; hence a wise man must
never despite them."
X.
322. "Kshatriyas prosper not without Brahmans, Brahmans prosper not
without Kshatriyas; Brahmans and Kshatriyas, being closely united, prosper in this (world)
and in the next." Here there is a clear attempt on the part of Manu to close the
ranks. Against whom did Manu want the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas to close their ranks?
Was this an attempt to forget and forgive or was the motive to combine them in a
conspiracy to achieve some unholy purpose. What were the circumstances that forced Manu to
advise the Brahmins to forget their age old enmity with Kshatriyas and seek the helping
hand? The circumstances, must have been very hard and very pressing. For there was no room
left for a reapproachment between the two. The Brahmins had
hurled a terrible insult against the Kshatriyas and had
wounded their price by saying quite openly that the Kshatriyas were the illegitimate
children of Brahmins begotten by them on Kshatriya widows. The next offensive thing that
the Brahmins had done to wound the feelings of the Kshatriyas was to extract from the
latter a confession that the Brahmins were superior to the Kshatriyas in military prowess
and had made Bhishma say :
"'The
prowess of the Brahmans can destroy even the gods. Those wise beings beholdall these
worlds. To them it is indifferent whether they are perfumed with sandal wood or deformed
with mire, whether they eat or fast, whether they are clad in silk, or in sack cloth or
skins. They can turn what is not divine into what is divine, and the converse; and can in
their anger create other worlds with their guardians. They are the gods of the gods; and
the cause of the cause. The ignorant Brahman is a god,
whilst a learned Brahman is yet more a god, like the full
ocean."
All
this makes this sudden climb down by the Brahmins, this stoping
down to win over the Kshatriyas very mysterious. What
can be the key to this mystery?
Shudras and the Counter-Revolution
This is a 21-page foolscap typed manuscript. The
cover page is having a title 'Shudras and the
Counter-Revolution' and the text on next page starts with
the same title. All these pages were loose and tagged together. Unfortunately, only 21
pages are available and the latter pages seem to be lost.— Editors.
The
laws of Manu relating to the Status of the Shudra make a very interesting reading for the simple reason
that they have moulded thed psychology of the Hindus and
determined their attitude towards the Shudras who forms at the present and at all times
the most numerous part of Hindu society. They are set out below under separate heads so
that it may be possible for the reader to have a complete idea of the status given by Manu
to the Community of Shudras.
Manu
asks the householders of the Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishya Class :
IV.
61. Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Shudra. A Shudra is not to be
deemed as a respectable person. For Manu enacts that:
XI.
24. A Brahmin shall never beg from a Shudra property for (performing) a sacrifice i.e. for
religious purpose. All marriage ties with the Shudra were proscribed. Marriage with a
woman belonging to any of the three other classes was forbidden. A Shudra was not to have
any connection with a woman of the higher classes and an act of adultery committed by a
Shudra with her was declared by manu to be an offence involving capital punishment.
VIII.
374. A Shudra who has an intercourse with a woman of the higher caste guarded[f73]
or unguarded, shall be punished in the following manner :
If
she was unguarded, he loses the offending part. If she was guarded then he should be put
to death and his property confiscated.
As
to office Manu prescribes.
VIII.
20. A Brahmana who is only a Brahmana
by decent i.e. one who has neither studied nor performed any other act required by the Vedas may, at the king's pleasure, interpret the law to him i.e. act as the
Judge, but never a Shudra (however learned he may be).
VIII.
21. The kingdom of that monarch who looks on while a Shudra settles the law will sink low
like a cow in a morass.
VIII.
272. If a Shudra arrogantly presumes to preach religion to Brahmins the King shall have
poured burning oil in his mouth and oars.
In
the matter of acquiring learning the knowledge Manu ordains
as follows :
III.
156. He who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Shudra shall become
disqualified for being invited to a Shudra.
IV.
99. He must never read the Vedas. . . . .
in the presece of the Shudras.
Manu's
successors went much beyond him in the cruelty of their punishment of the Shudra for
studying the Veda. For instance Katyayana lays down that if
a Shudra overheard the Veda or ventured to utter a word of the Veda the King shall cut his
tongue in twain and pour hot molten lead in his ears. As to right to property by the
Shudra Manu enjoins as follows :
X.
129. No superfluous collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra, even though he has
power to make it, since a servile man, who has amassed riches, becomes proud, and, by his
insolence or neglect, gives pain to Brahmans.
VIII.
417. A Brahmanas may seize without hesitation if he be in
distress for his subsistence, the goods of his Shudra. The Shudra can have only one
occupation. This is one of the inexhorable Laws of Manu.
Says Manu :
1.
91. One occupation only, the Lord prescribed to the Shudra, to serve meekly these other
three castes (namely Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishyas).
X.
121. If a Shudra, (unable to subsist by serving Brahmans) seeks a livelihood, he may serve
Kshatriyas, or he may also seek to maintain himself by
attending on a wealthy Vaisya.
X.
122. But let (Shudra) serve Brahmans, either for the sake of heaven, or with a view to
both (this life and the next); for he who is called the servant of a Brahmana thereby
gains all his ends.
X.
123. The service of Brahmanas alone is declared (to be) an excellent occupation for a
Shudra for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit. Service by Shudra is not left by Manu to
be regulated as a free contract. If the Shudra refuses to serve there is a provision for
conscription which runs as follows :
VIII.
413. A Brahmana may compel a Shudra, whether bought or
unbought to do servile work; for he is created by the creator to be the slave of a
Brahmana.
X.
124. They must allot to him out of their own family (property) a suitable maintenance,
after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of those whom he is bound to suport.
X.
125. The remnants of their food must be given to him, as well as their old household
furniture.
A
Shudra is required by Manu to be servile in his speech and manner towards the other
classes.
VIII.
270. A Shudra who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut
out; for he is of low origin.
VIII.
271. If he mentions the names and castes of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail,
ten fingers long, shall be thrust red hot into his mouth.
Manu
is not satisfied with this. He wants this servile status of the Shudra to be expressed in
the names and surnames of persons belonging to that community. Manu says :
II.
31. Let the first part of a Brahman's name denote something
auspicious, a Kshatriya's be connected with power and a Vaishya's with wealth, but a Shudra's,
express something contemptible.
II.
32. The second part of a Brahman's name shall be a word implying
happiness; of a Kshatriya's word implying protection; of a Vaishya's a term expressive of
thriving and of a Shudra's an expression denoting services.
What
was the position of the Shudra before Manu? Manu treats the
Shudra as though he was an alien Non-Aryan not entitled to the social and religious
privileges of the Aryan. Unfortunately the view that the Shudra was a Non-Aryan is too
readily accepted by the generality of the people. But there can be no doubt that this view
has not the slightest foundation in the literature of the ancient Aryans.
Reading
the Religious literature of the ancient Aryans one comes across the names of various
communities and groups of people. There were first of all the Aryans with their fourfold
divisions of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Besides
them and apart from them there were (i) Asuras (ii) Suras or Devas
(iii)Yakshas (iv)
Gandharvas (v) Kinnars (vi) Charanas (vii) Ashvins and (viii) Nishadas.
The Nishadas were a jungle people primitive and
uncivilized. The Gandharvas, Yakshas, Kinnars, Charanas and
Ashvins were professional classes and not communities. The word Asura is generic name
given to various tribes known by their tribal names of Daityas,
Danavas, Dasyus, Kalananjas, Kaleyyas, Kalins, Nagas, Nivata-Kavachas, Paulomas, Pishachas and Raxasas. We do not know if the Suras and Devas were composed of various tribes as the Asuras were. We
only know the leaders of the Deva Community. The well known
amongst them were Brahma, Vishnu Rudra, Surya, Indra, Varuna, Soma etc.
Due
mostly to the ignorant interpretations of Sayanacharya some very curious beliefs prevail even among the
best informed people about these communities namely the Aryans, the Asuras and the Devas
and their inter-relation and their consanguinity. It is believed that the Asuras were not
a human species at all. They are held to have been ghosts and goblins who plagued the
Aryans with their nocturnal visitations. The Suras or Devas are understood to be poetic
deifications of nature's forces. With regard to the Aryans the belief is that they were a
fair race with sharp nose and had a great deal of colour prejudice. As to the Dasyus it is
asserted that a Dasyu is only another name for a Shudra. The Shudras it is said
formed the aboriginals of India. They were dark and flat nosed. The Aryans who invaded
India conquered them and made them slaves and as a badge of slavery gave them the name
Dasyu which it is said comes from the word Das[f74]
which means a slave.
Every
one of these beliefs is unfounded. The Asuras and Suras were communities of human beings
as the Aryans were. The Asuras and Suras were descended from a common father Kashapa. The story is that Daksha
Prajapati had 60 daughters, of them thirteen were given in
marriage to Kashapa. Diti and Aditi
were two among the 13 of Kashapa's
wives. Those born to Diti were called Asuras and those
born to Aditi were called Suras or Devas. The two faught a long and a bloody battle for
the soverignty of the world. This no doubt is mythology and
mythology though it is history in hyperbole is still history.
The
Aryans were not a race. The Aryans were a collection of people. The cement that held them
together was their interest in the maintenance of a type of culture called Aryan culture.
Any one who accepted the Aryan culture was an Aryan. Not being a race there was no fixed
type of colour and physiognomy which could be called Aryan. There was no dark and flat
nose people for the Aryans to distinguish themselves from[f75]. The whole of this edifice of colour
prejudice as being factors for division and antagonism between Aryans and the Dasyus is
based upon a wrong meaning given to the two words Varna
and Anas which are used with reference to the
Dasyus. The word Varna is taken to mean colour and the word Anas is taken to mean without nose. Both these
meanings are erroneous. Varna means Caste or group and Anas if read as An-As
means uncultivated speech. That statement that the Aryans had a colour prejudice which
determined their social order is arrant nonsense. If there were any people who were devoid
of colour prejudice it is the Aryans and that is because there was no dominant colour to
distinguish themselves.
It
is wrong to say that the Dasyus were non-Aryans by race.
The Dasyus were not a pre-Aryan
race of aboriginals of India. The Dasyus were members of the Aryan community who were
deprived of the title of Arya for opposing some belief or
cult which was an essential part of the Aryan Culture. How this belief that the Dasyus
were Non-Aryans by race could have arisen it is difficult to understand. In the Rig Veda
(X. 49) Indra says : "I (Indra) have killed
with my thuderbolt for the good of the man, known as Kavi. I have protected Kupa by
adopting means of protection. I took up the thunderbolt for killing Susna. I have deprived
the Dasyus of the appellation of Arya."
Nothing
can be more positive and definite than this statement of Indra that the Dasyus were
Aryans. Further and better proof of this fact can be had in the impeachment of Indra for
the various atrocities he had committed. In the list of atrocities for which Indra was
impeached there was one charge namely the killing of Vratra.
Vratra was the leader of the Dasyus. It is unthinkable that
such a charge could be framed against Indra if the Dasyus were not Aryans.
It
is erroneous to believe that the Shudras were conquered by
the Aryan invaders. In the first place the story that the Aryans came from outside India
and invaded the natives has no evidence to support it. There is a large body of evidence
that India is the home of the Aryans. In the second place there is no evidence anywhere of
any wa.rfare having taken place between Aryans and Dasyus but the Dasyus have nothing to
do with the Shudras. In the third place it is difficult to believe that the Aryans were a
powerful people capable of much military prowess. Any one who reads the history of the
Aryans in India in their relation to the Devas will be
reminded of the relationship that subsisted between the Viellens
and their lords during the feudal times. The Devas were the feudal lords and the Aryans
were the Villens. The innumerable sacrifices which the
Aryans performed have the look of fudal dues paid to the Deva. This servility of the Aryans to the Devas was due to the
fact that without the help and the protection of the Devas
they could not withstand the assualts of the Asuras. It is too much to presume that so effete
a people could have conquered the Shudras. Lastly there was no necessity to conquer the Shudra. Thy were Aryans in the
only sense in which the word Aryan is used, namely, the
upholders of the Aryans Culture. Two things are clear about the Shudras.
Nobody has ever contended that they were dark and flat nosed. Nobody has contended that
they were defeated or enslaved by the Aryans. It is wrong to treat the Dasyus and Shudras as one and the same. As a people they may
be the same. But culturally they were quite different.The Dasyus were Non-Aryans in the
sense they had fallen away and rebelled against the Aryan culture. The Shudras on the
other hand were Aryans i.e. they were believers in the Aryan way of life. The Shudra was accepted as an Aryan and as late as Kautilya's Artha Shastra was addressed an Arya.
The
Shudra was an intergral, natural and valued member of the
Aryan Society is proved by a prayer which is found in the Yajur
Veda[f76]
and
which is offered by the Sacrificer. It runs as follows : "......... 0 Gods
Give lustre to our holy priests, set lustre in our ruling
chiefs, Lustre to Vaisyas, Sudras
: Give, through lustre; Lustre unto me." It is a
remarkable prayer, remarkable because it shows that the Shudra was a member of the Aryan
Community and was also a respected member of it.
That
the Shudras were invited to be present at the coronation of the King along with Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas is
proved by the description given in the Mahabharata of the
coronation of Yudhisthira the eldest brother of the Pandavas. Shudra took part in the consecration of the King.
According to ancient writer called Nilkantha speaking of
the coronation ceremony expressly says : "that the four chief Ministers, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra
consecra.ted the new king. Then the leaders of each Varna and by the Castes lower still
consecrated him with the holy water. Then followed acclamation by the twice-born. In the post-vedic period preceding Manu
there was group of the representatives of the people called the Ratnis.
The Ratnis played a significant part in the investiture of
the King. The Ratnis were so called because they held the Ratna
(jewel) which was a symbol of sovereignty. The king received his sovereignty only when the
Ratnis handed over to him the jewel of sovereignty and on receiving his sovereignty the
King went to the house of each of the Ratnis and made an offering to him. It is a
significant fact that the Shudra was one of the Ratnis.
Shudras
were members of the two political Assemblies of ancient times namely the Janapada and Paura and as a
member of this he was entitled to special respect even from a Brahmin. That the Shudra in the Ancient Aryan Society had reached a high
political status is indisputable. They could become ministers of State. The Mahabharat bears testimony to this. Enumerating the different
classes of ministers within his memory the writer of the Mahabharata
mentions a list[f77]
of 37 Ministers of whom four are Brahmins, eight Kshatriyas,
twenty one Vaishyas, three Shudras
and one Suta.
Shudras
did not stop with being ministers of State. They even became Kings. The story of Shudras
which is given in the Rig Veda stands in cruel contrast with the views expressed by Manu regarding the eligibility of the Shudra to be a King. The
reign of Sudas if referred to at all is referred only in
connection with the terrible contest between Vashishtha and
Vishvamitra as to who should become the purohit or Royal priest of King Sudas. The issue involved in
the contest was as to the right to officiate as the Purohit or the King. Vashishtha who
was a Brahmin
and who was already an officiating priest of Sudas claimed that
a Brahmin alone could become the Purohit of a King while Vishvamitra who was a Kshatriya contended that a Kshatriya
was competent for that office. Vishvamitra succeeded and in his turn became the Purohit of
Sudas. The contest is indeed memorable because the issue involved in it is very crucial
although the result has not been a permanent deprivation of the Brahmins. But there can be
no doubt the story is probably the best piece of social history that is to be found in the
ancient literature. Unfortunately nobody has taken serious notice of it. Nobody has even
asked who this King was. Sudas was the son of Paijavana and
Paijavana is the son of Devodas
who was the King of Kasi i.e. Benares. What was the Varna
of Sudas? Few would believe if they were told that King Sudas was a Shudra. But that is a
fact and it can be proved by the testimony of the Mahabharata[f78]
where
in the Santipurva a reference is made to this Paijavana. It is stated that Paijavana was a
Shudra. In the light of this the story of Sudas sheds new light on the status of the
Shudra in the Aryan Society. It shows that a Shudra could be a reigning monarch. It also
shows that both the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas not only saw no humiliation in serving a
Shudra King but they
with each other to secure his patronage and were ready to perform vedic ceremonies at his house.
It
cannot be said that there were no Shudra Kings in later times. On the contrary history
shows that the two dynasties which preceded Manu were dynasties of Shudras Kings. The Nandas who ruled from B.C.413 to B.C. 322[f79]
were
Shudras. The mauryas who succeded
the Nandas and who ruled from 322 B.C, to 183 B.C.[f80]
were also Shudras. What more glaring piece of evidence can
there be to show the high dignity enjoyed by the Shudra
than to point to the case of Asoka who was not merely the
Emperor of India but a Shudra and his Empire was the Empire built by the Shudras.
On
the question of the right of the Shudra to study the Vedas
a reference may be made to the Chhandogya Upanished (V. 1.2). It relates the story of one Janasruti to whom Veda Vidya
was taught by the preceptor Raikva. This Janasruti was a
Shudra. This story if it is a genuine story leaves no doubt that there was a time when
there was no bar against the Shudra in the matter of studying the Vedas.
Not
only was Shudra free to study the Vedas but there were Shudras who had reached the status
of Rishis and has been composers of the Hymns of the Vedas.
The story of the Rishi Kavasha
Aliusha[f81]
is very illuminating. He was a Rishi and the author of several hymns of the Tenth Book of
the Rig-Veda.[f82]
On
the question of the spiritual eligibility of the Shudra to perform the Vedic ceremonies and sacrifies
the following data may be presented. Jaimin[f83]
the author of the Purva Mimansa
mentions an ancient teacher by name Badari—whose work
is lost as an exponent of the view that even Shudra could perform Vedic sacrifices. The Bharadvaja Srauta Sutra (v. 28) admits that there exists another school of thought
which holds that a Sudra can consecrate the three sacred
fires necessary for the performance of a Vedic Sacrifice. Similarly the Commentator of the
Katyayana Srauta Sutra (I & 5) admits that there are
certain Vedic texts which lead o the inference that the
Shudra was eligible to perform Vedic rites. In the Satpath
Brahmana (1. 1.4.12) there is enunciated a rule of etiquette which the priest
officiating at the performance of a sacrifice is required to observe. It relates to the
mode in which the priest should address the Haviskut (the
person celebrating the sacrifice) calling upon him to begin the ceremony. The rule says:
"Now
there are four different forms of this call, viz. 'Come
hither' (Ehi) in the case of
a Brahmana; 'approach' (Agahi) and 'hasten hither' (Adarva) in the case of a Vaishya and a member of the Military caste and 'run hither' (Adhava) in that of a Shudra." In the Satpatha Brahman[f84]
there is evidence to show that the Shudra was eligible to perform the Soma Yaga and to partake of the
divine drink Soma. It says that in the Soma Yaga in place of a 'payovrata'
(vow to drink milk only) Mastu (whey) is prescirbed for the Shudra. In
another place the same Satapatha
Brahmana[f85]says
:
"There
are four classes, the Brahmin, Rajanya, Vaishya and Sudra. There is no
one of these who dislikes Soma. If any one of them however
should do so, let there be an atonment." This means
that the drinking of Soma was not only permissible but it was compulsory on all including
the Shudra. But in the story of the Ashvins there is
definite evidence that the Shudra had a right to the divine drink of Soma. The Ashvins as
the story[f86]
goes
once happened to behold Sukanya when she had just bathed and when her person was bare. She was young girl
married to a Rishi by name Chyavana
who at the time of marriage was so old as to be dying almost any day. The Ashvins were
captivated by the beauty of Sukanya and said "accept
one of us for your husband, it behoveth
thee not to spend thy youth fruitlessly."
She
refused saying "I am devoted to my husband." They
again spoke to her and this time proposed a bargain—"
We two are the celestial physicians of note. We will make thy husband young and graceful.
Do thou then select one of us as thy husband." She went to her husband and
communicated to him the terms of the bargain. Chyavana said to Sukanya "Do thou so" and the
bargain was carried out and
Chyavana was made a young man by the Ashwins. Subsequently
a question arose whether the Ashwins were entitled to Soma which was the drink of the
Gods. Indra objected saying that the Ashwins were Shudras and therefore not entitled to Soma. Chyavana who had
received perpetual youth from the Ashwins set aside the contention and compelled Indra to
give them Soma.
All
these provisions can have no meaning unless the Shudra was in fact performing the Vedic ceremonies to which they relate—there is evidence
to show that a Shudra woman took part in the Vedic sacrifice known as the Ashwamedha.[f87]
With
regard to the Upanayana ceremony and the right to wear the
sacred thread there is nowhere an express prohibition against the Shudra. On the other
hand in the Sansakara Ganapati
there is an express provision declaring the Shudra to be eligible for Upanayan.[f88]
The
Shudra though belonging to a lower class was nonetheless a free citizen in days before Manu cannot
be gainsaid. Consider the following provisions in Kautilya's Artha Shastra :
"The
selling or mortgaging by kinsmen of the life of a Sudra who
is not a born slave, and has not attained majority, but is an Arya
in birth shall be punished with a fine of 2 panas."
"Deceiving
a slave of his money or depriving him of the privileges he can exercise as an Arya (Aryabhava), shall be punished with half the fine (levied for
enslaving the life of an Arya)."
"Failure
to set a slave at liberty on the receipt of a required amount of ransom shall be punished
with a fine of 12 panas; putting a slave under confinement
for no reason (samrodhaschakaranat) shall likewise be
punished.
"The
offspring of a man who has sold himself off as a slave shall be an Arya. A slave shall be
entitled without prejudice to his master's work but also the inheritance he has received
from his father."
Why
did Manu suppress the Shudra?
This
riddle of the Shudra is not a simple riddle. It is a complex one. The Aryans were for ever
attempting to Aryanize the Non-Aryans i.e. bringing them
within the pale of the Aryan Culture. So keen were the Aryans on Aryanization that they had developed a religious ceremony for
the mass conversion of the Non-Aryans. The ceremony was called Vratya-stoma.
Speaking of the Vratya-Stoma Mahamahopadhyaya
Haraprasad Shastri says :
"The
ceremony by which these Vratyas were purified, and which is described in the Pancavimsa Brahmana differed at least
in one particular from other great ceremonies of the Vedic
times, namely, while other ceremonies had only one sacrificer
and his wife in the hall of sacrifice, this ceremony had thousands of sacrificers. One of them, the wisest, the richest or the most
powerful acted as Grahapati or Patriarch and the rest
simply followed him. The Grahapati had to pay a higher Daksina
or fee than the rest."
"I
consider this to be a device by which thousands and thousands of Vratyas were admitted to
the society of the Rsis by one ceremony, and such
ceremonies were of frequent occurrence, thus admitting hordes after hordes of nomadic
Aryans into settled habits. The purified Vratyas were not allowed to bring their
possessions in Vratya life with them in settled life. They
had to leave them to those who remained Vratyas still or do the so-called Brahmins of the Magadha-desa, which, as I have elsewhere shown, was mostly
inhabited by men whom the Rsis looked down upon."
"But
when the Vratyas were admitted to settled life, they were admitted as fully equals. The
Rsis used to eat food cooked by them, and they used to eat food cooked by the Ris. They were taught all the three Vidyas,
Sama, Rk, and Yajus, and they were allowed to study the Vedas, and teach them, and to sacrifice for themselves and for
others, that is, they were considered as fully equal. Not only were they treated as fully
equal but they attained the highest proficiency of a Rsi. Samans were revealed to them,
and even Rks. One of the purified Vratyas, Kausitaki was allowed
to collect Brahmans of the Rig-Veda, which collection still
goes under his name."
The Aryans were not only converting to their way of life
the willing non-Aryans they were also attempting to make converts from among the unwilling
Asuras who were opposed to the Aryans, their cult of sacrifice, their theory of Chaturvarna and even to their Vedas which according to the
mythology the Asuras stole away from the Aryas. The story
of Vishnu rescuing Pralhad by killing his father the Asura
called Hiranya Kashapu on
the ground that Pralhad was willing to be converted to the Aryan Culture while Hiranya Kashapu was opposed to it is an illustration in point. Here
are instances of Non-Aryans being naturalized and enfranchized. Why was an opposite attitude taken against the Shudra? Why was the Shudra
fully naturalized and fully enfranchized, denaturalized and
disfranchized?
The
treatment given to the Nishadas
gives a point to this riddle which should not be overlooked. The Ancient Sanskrit
Literature is full of reference to the five tribes. They are described under various
appellations[f89]
such as Panch-Krishtayah, Panch-Kshitayah,
Panch-Kshityas Manushyah, Panch-Charshanayah, Panch-Janah,
Panchi-janya viz., Pancha-Bhuma, Panchajata. There
is a difference of opinion as to what these terms denote. Sayanacharya
the Commentator of Rig Veda says that these expressions refer to the four Varnas and the Nishads. The
Vishnu Purana gives the following story about the Nishads :
"7.
The Maiden named Sunitha, who was the first born of Mrityu (Death) was given as wife to Anga;
and of her Vena was born."
8.
This son of Mrityu's daughter, infected with the taint of
his maternal grandfather, was born corrupt, as if by nature.
9.
When Vena was inaugurated as king by the eminent rishis, he
caused this proclamation to be made on the earth; "Men
must not sacrifice, or give gifts, or present oblations. Who else but myself is the enjoyer of sacrifices? I am for ever the lord of offerings.'
10.
Then all the rishis approaching the king with respectful salutations, said to him in a
gentle and conciliatory tone :
11.' Hear, O King, what we have to say :
12.
We shall worship Hari, the monarch of the Gods, and the
lord of all sacrifices with a Dirghasattra (prolonged
sacrifice), from which the highest benefits will accrue to your kingdom, your person and
your subjects. May blessing rest upon you? You shall have a share in the ceremony.
13.
Vishnu the Lord of sacrifices Male, being propitiated by us with this rite, will grant all
the objects of your desire. Hari, the Lord of Sacrifices, bestows on those kings in whose
country he is honoured with oblation everything that they wish." Vena replied : "What other being is superior to me? Who else but I
should be adored? Who is this person called Hari, whom you regard as the Lord of
sacrifice? Brahma Janardana, Rudra,
lndra, Vayu, Yama, Ravi (the Sun) Agni, Varuna, Dhatri, Pushan, Earth, the Moon,— these and the other gods who
curse and bless are all present in king's person: for he is composed of all the gods.
Knowing this. ye must act in conformity with my commands. Brahmans
ye must neither give gifts, nor present oblations nor
sacrifices.
14.
As obedience to their husbands is esteemed the highest duty of women, so is the observance
of my orders incumbent upon you." The Rishis answered. ' Give
permission great kings: let not religion perish: this whole world is but a modified form
of oblations.
15.
When religion perishes the whole world is destroyed with it, When Vena although thus
admonished and repeatedly addressed by the eminent rishis, did not give his permission,
then all the munis, filled
with wrath and indignation, cried out to one another, "Slay,
slay the sinner."
16.
This man of degraded life, who blasphemes the sacrified Male,
the god, the Lord without beginning or end, is not fit to be lord of the earth.' So saying the munis smote with blades of kusa grass consecrated by texts this king who had been already
smitten by his blasphemy of the divine being and his other offences. The munis afterwards
beheld dust all round, and asked the people who were standing near what that was.
17.
They were informed: "In this country which has no
king, the people being distressed, have become robbers, and have begun to seize the
property of others.
18.
It is from these robbers rushing impetuously, and plundering other men's goods, that this
great dust is seen?" Then all the munis, consulting together, rubbed with force the
thigh of the king, who was childless, in order to produce a son. From his thigh when
rubbed there was produced a man like a charred log, with flat face, and extremely short.
19.
"What shall I do," cried the man, in distress, to
the Brahmans. They said to him, "Sit down (nishida); and from this he became a Nishada.
20.
From his sprang the Nishadas dwelling in the Vindhya mountains, distinguished by their wicked deeds.
21.
By this means the sin of the king departed out of him; and so were the Nishads produced, the offspring of the wickedness of
Vena."
This
is a mythological origin of the Nishads. But it conta.ins historical facts. It proves that
the Nishads were a low, primitive jungle tribe living in the forests of the Vindhya
mountains, that they were a wicked people i.e. opposed to the Aryan Culture. They invented
a mythology for explaining their origin and connecting them with the Aryan Society. All
this was done in order to support the inclusion of the Nishads into the Aryan fold though
not in the Aryan Society. Now there is nowhere any sort of disabilities imposed upon
Nishads a low, uncivilized and foreign tribe. Question is why were the disabilities
imposed upon the Shudra, who was civilized and an Arya?
The Woman and the Counter-Revolution
There is one copy with a title 'The Woman and the Counter-Revolution '. There is another copy
of the same text with a title, ' The Riddle of the Woman '.
The Editorial Board felt that this essay would be
appropriate in this Volume rather than in the volume of Riddles in Hinduism '.—Editors.
Manu
can hardly be said to be more tender to women than he was to the Shudra. He starts with a low opinion of women. Manu proclaims :
II.
213. It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world): for that reason the wise are
never unguarded in (the company of) females.
II.
214. For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but even a learned
man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger.
II.
215. One should not sit in a lonely place with one's mother, sister or daughter; for the
senses are powerful, and master even a learned man.
IX.
14. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking); '(It is enough that) he is a man',
they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly.
IX.
15. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural
heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however, carefully they may be
guarded in this (world).
IX.
16. Knowing their disposition, which the Lord of creatures laid in them at the creation,
to be such, (every) man should most strenuously exert himself to guard them.
IX.
17. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and
(of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.
The
laws of Manu against women are of a piece with this view. Women are not to be free under
any circumstances. In the opinion of Manu:
IX.
2. Day and night women must be kept in dependence by the males (of their families), and,
if they attach themselves to sexual enjoyments, they must be kept under one's control.
IX.
3. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her
sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.
IX.
5. Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they
may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families.
IX.
6. Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to
guard their wives.
IV.
147. By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done
independently, even in her own house.
V.
148. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when
her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent.
V.
149. She must not seek to separate herself from her father, husband, or sons; by leaving
them she would make both (her own and her husband's) families contemptible. Woman is not
to have a right to divorce.
IX.
45. The husband is declared to be one with the wife, which means that there could be no
separation once a woman is married. Many Hindus stop here as though this is the whole
story regarding Manu's law of divorce and keep on idolizing
it by comforting their conscience by holding out the view that Manu
regarded marriag,e as sacrament and therefore, did not allow divorce. This of course is
far from the truth. His law against divorce had a very different motive. It was not to tie
up a man to a woman but it was to tie up the woman to a man and to leave the man free.
For
Manu does not prevent a man from giving; up his wife. Indeed he not only allows him to
abandon his wife but he also permits him to sell her. But what he does is to prevent the
wife from becoming free. See what Manu says:
IX.
46. Neither by sale nor by repudiation is a wife released from her husband.
The
meaning is that a wife, sold or repudiated by her husband, can never become the legitimate
wife of another who may have bought or received her after she was repudiated. If this is
not monstrous nothing can be. But Manu was not worried by consideration of justice or
injustice of his law. He wanted to deprive woman of the freedom she had under the
Buddhistic regime. He knew that by her misuse of her liberty, by her willingness to marry
the Shudra the system of the gradation of the Varna had
been destroyed. Manu was outraged by her license and in putting a stop to it he deprived her of her
liberty.
A
wife was reduced by manu to the level of a slave in the matter of property.
IX.
416. A wife, a son, and a slave, these three are declared to have no property; the wealth
which they earn is (acquired) for him to whom they belong.
When
she becomes a widow Manu allows her maintenance, if her husband was joint, and a widow's
estate in the property of her husband, if he was separate from his family. But Manu never
allows her to have any dominion over property.
A
woman under the laws of Manu is subject to corporal punishment and Manu allows the husband
the right to beat his wife.
VIII.
299. A wife, a son, a slave, a pupil and a younger brother of full blood, who have
committed faults, may be beaten with a rope or a split bamboo. In other matters woman was
reduced by Manu to the same position as the Shudra.
The
study of the Veda was forbidden to her by Manu as it was to the Shudra.
II.
66. Even for a woman the performance of the Sanskaras are necessary and they should be
performed. But they should be performed without uttering the Veda Mantras.
IX.
18. Women have no right to study the Vedas. That is why
their Sanskars are performed without Veda Mantras. Women
have no knowledge of religion because they have no right to know the Vedas. The uttering
of the Veda Mantras is useful for removing sin. As women cannot utter the Veda Mantras
they are as unclean as untruth is.
Offering
sacrifices according to Brahmanism formed the very soul of
religion. Yet Manu will not allow women to perform them. Manu ordains that :
XI.
36. A woman shall not perform the daily sacrifices prescribed by the Vedas.
XI,
37, If she does it she will go to hell.
To
disable her from performing such sacrifices Manu prevents her from getting the aid and
services of a Brahmin priest.
IV.
205. A Brahman must never eat food given at a sacrifice
performed by a woman.
IV.
206. Sacrifices performed by women are inauspicious and not acceptable to God. They should
therefore be avoided. Woman was not to have any intellectual persuits
nor free will, nor freedom of thought. She was not to join
any heretical sect such as Buddhism. If she continues to adhere to it till death she is
not to be given the libation of water as is done in the case of all dead.
Finally
a word regarding the ideal of life, Manu has sought to
place before a woman. It had better be stated in his own words :
V.
151. Him to whom her father may give her, or her brother with the father's permission, she
shall obey as long as he lives and when he is dead, she must not insult his memory.
V.
154. Though destitute or virtue, or seeking pleasure elsewhere, or devoid of good
qualities, yet a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife.
V.
155. No sacrifice, no vow, no fast must be performed by women, apart from their husbands;
if a wife obeys her husband, she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven. Then
comes the choicest texts which forms the pith and the marrow of this ideal which Manu
prescribes for women:
V.
153. The husband who wedded her with sacred Mantras, is
always a source of happiness to his wife, both in season and out of season, in this world
and in the next.
V.
150. She must always be cheerful, clever in the management of her household affairs,
careful in cleaning her utensils, and economical in
expenditure.
This
the Hindus regard as a very lofty ideal for a woman! Compare
with this the position of the woman before the days of Manu.
That
a woman was entitled to Upanayan is clear from the Atharva Veda where a girl is spoken of as being eligible for
marriage having finished her Brahmacharya. From the Shrauta Sutras it is clear that women could repeat the Mantras
of the Vedas and that women were taught to read the Vedas. Panini's Ashtaadhyai bears
testimony to the fact that women attended Gurukul and
studied the various Shakhas of the Veda and became expert
in Mimansa. Patanjali's Maha Bhashya shows that women
were teachers and taught Vedas to girl students. The stories of women entering into public
discussions with men on most abstruse subjects of religion, philosophy and metaphysics are
by no means few. The story of public disputation between Janaka
and Sulbha, between Yajnavalkya
and Gargi, between Yajnavalkya
and Maitrei and between Shankaracharya
and Vidyadhari shows that Indian women in pre-Manu's time could rise to the highest pinnacle of learning
and education.
That
women in pre-Manu days were highly respected cannot be disputed. Among the Ratnis
who played so prominent a part in the coronation of the King in Ancient India was the
queen and the King made her an offering[f90]
as he did to the others. Not only the king elect did homage to the Queen, he worshipped
his other wives of lower castes[f91].
In the same way the King offers salutation after the coronation ceremony to the, ladies of
the chiefs of the shremes (guides[f92]).
In
the days of Kautilya women[f93]
were
deemed to have attained their age of majority at 12 and men at 16. The age of majority was
in all probability the age of marriage. That the marriages were post puberty marriages is
clear from Baudhayanas' Grihya
Sutras[f94]where
an expiatory ceremony is specially prescribed in the case of a bride passing her menses on
the occasion of her marriage.
In
Kautilya there is no law as to age of consent. That is because marriages were post puberty
marriages and Kautilya is more concerned with cases in which a bride or a bridegroom is
married without disclosing the fact of his or her having had sexual intercouse before marriage with another person or maiden in
menses having had sexual intercouse. In the former case Kautilya says[f95]
:
"Any
person who has given a girl in marriage without announcing her guilt of having laid with
another shall not only be punished with a fine but also be made to return the Sulka and Stridhana. Any person
receiving a girl in marriage without announcing the blemishes of the bridegroom shall not
only pay double the above fine, but also forfeit the Sulka
and Stridhana (he paid for the bride). In regard to the latter case the rule in Kautilya[f96]
is :
"It
is no offence for a man of equal caste and rank to have connection with a maiden who has
been unmarried three years after her first menses. Nor is it an offence for a man, even of
different caste, to have connection with a maiden who has spent more than three years
after her first menses and has no jewellery on her person."
Unlike
Manu Kautilya's idea is
monogamy. Man can marry more than one wife only under certain conditions. They are given
by Kautilya in the following terms1 :
"If
a woman either brings forth no (live) children, or has no male issue, or is barren, her
husband shall wait for eight years (before marrying another). If she bears only a dead
child, he has to wait for ten years. If she brings forth only females, he has to wait for
twelve years. Then if he is desirious to have sons, he may
marry another. In case of violating this rule, he shll be made to pay her not only Sulks, her property (Stridhana) and an adequate monetary compensation (adhivedanika martham), but
also a fine of 24 panas to the Government. Having given the
necessary amount of Sulka and property (Stridhana) even to
those women who have not received such things on the occasion of their marriage with him,
and also having given his wives the proportionate compensation and an adequate subsistence (vrutti), he may
marry any number of women; for women are created for the sake of sons."
Unlike
Manu in Kautilya's time
women could claim divorce on the ground of mutual enmity and hatred.
"A
woman, hating her husband, cannot dissolve her marriage with him against his will. Nor can
a man dissolve his marriage with his wife against her will. But from mutual enmity,
divorce may be obtained (parasparam dveshanmokshah). If a man, apprehending danger from his wife,
desires divorce (mokshamichchhet), he shall return to her
whatever she was given (on the occasion of her marriage). If a woman, under the
apprehension of danger from her husband, desires divorce, she shall forfeit her claim to
her property." A wife can abandon her husband if he is a bad character.
"
A woman who has a right to claim maintenance for an unlimited period of time shall be
given as much food and clothing (grasacchadana) as
necessary for her, or more than is neessary in proportion
to the income of the maintainer (yathapurushapari-vapam
va). If the period (for which such things are to be given
to her with one-tenth of the amount in addition) is limited, then a certain amount of
money, fixed in proportion to the income of the maintainer, shall be given to her; so also
if she has not been given her Sulka, property, and compensation (due to her for allowing
her husband to re-marry). If she places herself under the protection of any one belonging
to her father-in-law's family (Svasurakula), or if she
begins to live independently, then her husband shall not be sued (for her maintenance).
Thus the determination of maintenance is dealt with."
In
the days of Kautilya there was no ban on woman or a widow
remarrying :
"On
the death of her husband a woman, desirous to lead a pious life, shall at once receive not
only her endowment and jewellery (sthapyabharanam), but
also the balance of Sulka due to her. If after obtaining these two things she re-married
another, she shall be caused to pay them back together with interest (on their value). If
she is desirous of a second marriage (kutumbarkama), she
shall be given on the occasion of her re-marriage (nivesakale)
whatever either her father-in-law or her husband or both had given to her. The time at
which women can re-marry shall be explained in connection
with the subject of long sojourn of husbands.
"If
a widow marries any man other than of her father-in-law's selection (svasurapratilomyenanivishta), she shall forfeit whatever had
been given to her by her father-in-law and her deceased husband.
"The
kinsmen (gnatis) of a woman shall return to her old
father-in-law whatever property of her own she had taken with her while re-marrying a
kinsman. Whoever justly takes a woman under his protection shall equally protect her
property. No woman shall succeed in her attempt to establish her title to the property of
her deceased husband, after she re-marries.
"if
she lives a pious life, she may enjoy it (dharmakama bhunjita). No woman with a son or sons shall (after
re-marriage) be at liberty to make free use of her own property (stridhana);
for that property of hers, her sons shall receive. "If
a woman after re-marriage attempts to take possession of her own property under the plea
of maintaining her sons by her former husband, she shall be made to endow it in their
name. If a woman has many male children by many husbands, then she shall conserve her
property in the same condition as she had received from her husbands. Even that property
which has been given her with full powers of enjoyment and disposal, a remarried woman
shall endow in the name of her sons.
"A
barren widow who is faithful to the bed of her dead husband may, under the protection of
her teacher, enjoy her property as long as she lives; for it is to ward off calamities
that women are endowed with property. On her death, her property shall pass into the hands
of her kinsman (Dayada). If the husband is alive and the
wife is dead, then her sons and daughters shall divide her property among themselves. If
there are no sons, her daughters shall have it. In their absence her husband shall take
that amount of money (sulka) which he had given her, and
her relatives shall re-take whatever in the shape of gift or dowry they had presented her.
Thus the determination of the property of a woman is dealt with."
"Wives
who belong to Sudra, Vaisya,
Kshatriya or Brahman caste,
and who have not given birth to children, should wait as long as a year, two, three and
four years respectively for their husba.nds who have gone abroad for a short time; but if
they are such as have given birth to children, they should wait for their absent husbands
for more than a year. If they are provided with maintenance, they should wait for twice
the period of time just mentioned. If they are not so provided with, their well-to-do gnatis should maintain them either for four or eight years.
Then the gnatis should leave them to marry, after taking what had been presented to them
on the occasion of their marriages. If the husband is a Brahman,
studying abroad, his wife who has no issue should wait for him for ten years; but if she
has given birth to children, she should wait for twelve years. If the husband is a servant
of the king, his wife should wait for him till her death; but even if she bears children
to a savarna husband (i.e. a second husband belonging to
the same gotra as that of the former husband), with a view
to avoid the extinction of her race, she shall not be liable to contempt thereof (savarnatascha prajata na ' pavadam labheta). If the wife of an absent husband lacks maintenance
and is deserted by well-to-do gnatis, she may re-marry one
whom she likes and who is in a position to maintian her and
relieve her misery."
Unlike
Manu every precaution was taken to guarantee economic
independence to a married woman. This is clear from the following provisions in Kautilya's Arthashastra
relating to wife's endowment and maintenance :
"Means
of subsistence (vruti) or jewellery (abadhya) constitutes what is called the property of a woman.
Means of subsistence valued at above two thousand shall be endowed (in her name). There is
no limit to jewellery. It is no guilt for the wife to make use of this property in
maintaining her son, her daughter-in-law, or herself, whenever her absent husband has made
no provision for her maintenance. In calamities, disease and famine, in warding off
dangers and in charitable acts, the husband, too, may make use of this property. Neither
shall there by any complaint against the enjoyment of this property by mutual consent by a
couple who have brought forth a twin. Nor shall there be any complaint if this property
has been enjoyed for three years by those who are wedded in accordance with the customs of
the first four kinds of marriage. But the enjoyment of this property in the cases of Gandharva and Asura marriages shall be liable to be restored
together with interest on it. In the case of such marriages as are called Rakshasa and Paisacha, the use
of this property shall be dealt with as theft. Thus the duty of marriage is dealt
with."
"A
woman who has a right to claim maintenance for an unlimited period of time shall be given as much food and clothing (grasachhadan) as is necessary
for her, or more than is necessary in proportion
to the income
of the
maintainer (yatha-purushaparivapam va). If
the period (for which such things are to be given to her with one-tenth of the amount in
addition) is limited, then a certain amount of money, fixed in proportion to the income of
the maintainer, shall be given to her; so also if she has not been given her sulka, property, and compensation (due to her for allowing her
husband to re-marry). If she places herself under the protection of any one belonging to
her father-in-law's family (svasurkula), or if she begins
to live independently, then her husband shall not be sued (for her maintenance). Thus the
determination of maintenance is dealt with." Surprising as it may appear in Kautilya's time a wife could bring an action in a court of law
against her husband for assault and defamation.
In
short in pre-Manu days a woman was free and equal partner
of man. Why did Manu degrade her?
[f1]Science
of Religion, pages 150-151.
[f2]Ancient
Law p. 6.
[f3]"Morals
and Religion"-Hibbert Journal Vol. XIX. pp. 615-621.
[f4]Punjab
Census Report 1881. para 214.
[f5]Census
of India. Report 1881. p. 158.
[f6]Census
of India. Report 1911 p. 114.
[f7]Asiatie
Studies Vol.II pp. 287-88.
[f8]Science
of Religion, p. 28.
[f9]Quoted
bv Garbe in his Introduction to the Bhagvat Gita (Indian Antiquary 1918 Supplement).
[f10]Religion
of India pp. 390-400.
[f11]Quoted
by Garbe.
[f12]Introduction
to Bhagvat Gita.
[f13]Bhagvat
Gita (S.F..B.) Introduction p. II.
[f14]And see,
too. Chapter VII. stanza 17. where the man of knowledge is declared to be 'dear' to
Krishna.
[f15]See
His Gita Rahasya (2nd edition) vol. II. Chapter XIV. passim.
[f16]Bhagvat
Gita IV. 13.
[f17]Bhagvat
Gita II. 39-53.
[f18]Bhagvat
Gita II. 47. "This is well summed up in Bhagvat Gita II. 48.
[f19]Introduction
(Indian Antiquary Supplement) p. 30.
[f20]Gita
Rahasya Vol. II. 916-922.
[f21]Bhagvat
Gita II. 42-46 and XVIII 66.
[f22]Bhagwat
Gita XIII. 4
[f23]Gita
Rahasya II. p. 749.
[f24]Bhagvat
Gita (S.B.E.) Introduction p. 31.
[f25]History
of Indian Literature p. 242 f.n.
[f26]On
the other hand. it may be said that Mr. Tilak readily admitted the reference because it
was his opinion that Brahma Sutras were a very ancient treatise see Gita Rahasya Vol. II.
[f27]Essays
on Sanskrit Literature. Vo. III p. 150.
[f28]See
our remarks on this point in the Introductory Essay to our Gita in verse p. II seq
[f29]Introduction
to Gita in English verse p. v. seq.
[f30]Cr.
Max Muller's Hibbert Lectures. p. 137 Webet's Indian Literature, pp. 288. 289: and Rhys
Davids' excellent little volume on Buddhism. p. 151: and see also p. 83 of Mr. Davids'
book.
[f31]Cf.Weber's
History of Indian Literature, p. 285. In Mr. Davids' Buddhism, p. 94 we have a noteworthy
extract frorn a standard Buddhistic work. touching the existence of the soul. Compare that
with the corresponding doctrine in the Gita. It will be found that the two are at one in
rejecting the identity of the soul with the senses &c. The Gita then goes on lo admit
a soul separate from these. Buddhism rejects that also. and sees nothing but the senses.
[f32]On this point compare
Bhagvat Gila by S. D. Budhiraja M.A.. L.L.B.. Chief Judge. Kashmere. At every point the
author has attempted to draw attention to textual similarities between the Gita and
Buddhism.
[f33]Max
Muller Mahapari-Nibbana Sutta p. 63.
[f34]See
Mahapadana Sutta p.
[f35]Tevijja
Sutta p.
[f36]History
of Indian Literature (English Translation) Vol. II p. 229 foot-note.
[f37]Manual
of Indian Buddhism p. 122 foot-note
[f38]1 Gita Rahasya Vol II. p. 791-800.
[f39]The
Great Epic of India p. 398.
[f40]The
Great Epic of India p. 398.
[f41]The
Great Epic of India p. 395.
[f42]Ibid
p. 390.
[f43]Gita Rahasya II p.
79.
[f44]Gita
Rahasya II p. 789.
[f45]Ibid
p. 789.
[f46]Dharmanand
Kausambi — Hindi Sanskriti ani Ahimsa (Marathi)
p 156.
[f47]Dr.
Bhandarkar in his 'Saivism and Vaishnavism ' says. " If the Vasudeva Krishna worship
prevailed in the time of the first Maurya it must have originated long before the
establishment of the Maurya dynasty."This is an unexceptionable statement. But it
seems to me that a distinction must be made between Krishna as a tribal God and Krishna as
an universalized Ishwara. The date for the first may be what Dr. Bhandarkar suggests but
the same cannot be the dale for the second. In the Gita we are concerned with the second.
[f48]See
Shamshastri Memorial Volume.
[f49]The
opposition to Krishnaism has been expressed by so late a person as Shankaracharya
[f50]The
dates of the Philosophical Sutras of the Brahmans-in the journal of the American Oriental
Society Vol. XXXI 1911.
[f51]On
the whole subject see—A Historical study of the terms Hinayana and Mahayana and the
origin of Mahayana Buddhism—by Ryukan Kimura, Cal. University 1927.
[f52]This
is if the date of Buddha's death is taken to be 543 B.C. and would be 217 B.C. if the date
of his death is taken to be 453 B.C.
[f53]Muir
Vol. I, p. 302-303.
[f54]Muir
Vol. I, p. 307.
[f55]Muir
Vol. I, p. 310-313.
[f56]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 316.
[f57]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 397-400.
[f58]Muir
Vol. 1. pp. 377-378.
[f59]As stated in another place
in the Harivamsa Trisanku had been expelled from his home by his father for the offence of carrying off
the young wife of one of the citizens under the influence of a criminal passion and
Vashishtha did not interfere to prevent his banishment. It is to this that the text
refers.
[f60]Muir Vol. 1. pp. 376-77.
[f61] 1 Muir Vol. 1.
pp. 405-407.
[f62]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 415-417.
[f63]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 420-422.
[f64]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 448-449.
[f65]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 349-350.
[f66]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 450.
[f67]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 454.
[f68]Muir
Vol. 1. pp. 454.
[f69]Muir
Vol. 1. pp. 473
[f70]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 454-55.
[f71]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 451-452.
[f72]Muir
Vol. I, pp. 473-474.
[f73]Guarded
means under the protection of some relation. Unguarded means living alone
[f74]1
According to Nirukta. Das means to destroy
[f75]On
the whole of this subject see a brilliant discussion by Mr. Satvalekar in Purusharth Vol.
XIII. p.
[f76]..........
White Yujur Veda p. 200.
[f77]Jaiswal—Hindu
Polity Part II. p. 148.
[f78]Muir
Sanskrit Texts Vol. 1. p. 366.
[f79]Figures are incorporated by Editor as they are they are
not in the M.S.—
Editors
[f80]Figures are incorporated by Editors as they are not in
the MS.—Editors.
[f81]1Aitereya
Brahmana Vol. II. p. 112.
[f82]Max-Muller—Ancient
Sanskrit Literature 1860p.58.
[f83]See
Kane—History of Dharmashastras.
[f84]Quoted
by Kane—History of Dharamshastra
[f85]Quoted
by Muir Sanskrit Texts 1. p. 367.
[f86]V.
Fausboil Indian Mythology pp. 128-134
[f87]Jaiswal
Indian Polity Part II. p. 17.
[f88]Referred
to by Max-Muller in Ancient Sanskrit Literature - (1860) - p. 207.
[f89]Source
not quoted.—
Editors.
[f90]Jaiswal;
Indian Polity, Part II, p. 16.
[f91]Ibid. Part II, p. 17.
[f92]Ibid.
p. 82.
[f93]Sham
Shastri, Kautilya's Arthashastra, p. 175.
[f94]Baudhyayana,
1. 7. 22.
[f95]Sham
Shastri. Kautilya's Arthashastra, p. 222.
[f96]Ibid.
p. 259.