34. Grief of him (i.e. of
Gâna
sruti) (arose) on account of his hearing a disrespectful speech about himself; on account of the rushing on of that (grief) (Raikva called him
Sûdra); for it (the grief) is pointed at (by Raikva).
(In the preceding adhikara
na) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim. The present adhikara
na is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the claim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the
Sûdras also possess such a claim.
The pûrvapakshin maintains that the
Sûdras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (excluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, 'Therefore
1 the
Sûdra is unfit for sacrificing' (Taitt. Sa
mh. VII, 1, 1, 6). The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the
Sûdras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for knowledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires. There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the
Sûdras; for in the so-called sa
mvarga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to
Gâna
sruti Pautrâya
na, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of
Sûdra 'Fie, necklace and carnage be thine, O
Sûdra, together with the cows' (
Kh. Up. IV, 2, 3). Sm
riti moreover speaks of Vidûra and others who were born from
Sûdra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge.--Hence the
Sûdra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman.
To this we reply that the Sûdras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters; but a Sûdra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters.
And spiritual capability is (in the case of the Sûdras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda.--The Vedic statement, moreover, that the
Sûdra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also; for the argumentation is the same in both cases
1--With reference to the pûrvapakshin's opinion that the fact of the word '
Sûdra' being enounced in the sa
mvarga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the
Sûdra's qualification for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments. For the statement of an inferential mark possesses the power of intimation only in consequence of arguments being adduced; but no such arguments are brought forward in the passage quoted.
2 Besides, the word '
Sûdra' which occurs in the sa
mvarga-vidyâ would establish a claim on the part of the
Sûdras to that one vidyâ only, not to all vidyâs. In reality, however, it is powerless, because occurring in an arthavâda, to establish the
Sûdras' claim to anything.--The word '
Sûdra' can moreover be made to agree with the context in which it occurs in the following manner. When
Gâna
sruti Pautrâya
na heard himself spoken of with disrespect by the flamingo ('How can you speak of him, being what he is, as if he were like Raikva with the car?' IV, i, 3), grief (su
k) arose in his mind, and to that grief the
rishi Raikva alludes with the word
Sûdra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote.
This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born Sûdra is not qualified (for the sa
mvarga-vidyâ. If it be asked how the grief (su
k) which had arisen in
Gânasruti's mind can be referred to by means of the word
Sûdra, we reply: On account of the rushing on (âdrava
na) of the grief. For we may etymologise the word
Sûdra by dividing it into its parts, either as 'he rushed into grief (
Su
kam abhidudrâva) or as 'grief rushed on him,' or as 'he in his grief rushed to Raikva;' while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense. The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend
35. And because the kshattriyahood (of
Gâna
sruti) is understood from the inferential mark (supplied by his being mentioned) later on with
Kaitraratha (who was a kshattriya himself).
Gânasruti cannot have been a Sûdra by birth for that reason also that his being a kshattriya is understood from an inferential sign, viz. his being mentioned together (in one chapter) with the kshattriya
Kaitraratha Abhipratârin. For, later on, i.e. in the passage complementary to the sa
mvarga-vidyâ, a kshattriya
Kaitrarathi Abhipratârin is glorified, 'Once while
Saunaka Kâpeya and Abhipratârin Kâkshaseni were being waited on at their meal a religious student begged of them' (
Kh. Up. IV, 3, 5). That this Abhipratârin was a
Kaitrarathi (i.e. a descendant of
Kitraratha) we have to infer from his connexion with a Kâpeya. For we know (from
Sruti) about the connexion of
Kitraratha himself with the Kâpeyas ('the Kâpeyas made
Kitraratha perform that sacrifice;' Tâ
ndya. Br. XX, 12, 5), and as a rule sacrificers of one and the same family employ officiating priests of one and the same family. Moreover, as we understand from Scripture ('from him a
Kaitrarathi descended who was a prince
2') that he (
Kaitraratha) was a prince, we must understand him to have been a kshattriya. The fact now of
Gâna
sruti being praised in the same vidyâ with the kshattriya Abhipratârin intimates that the former also was a kshattriya. For as a rule equals are mentioned together with equals.
That Gânasruti was a kshattriya we moreover conclude from his sending his door-keeper and from other similar signs of power (mentioned in the text).--Hence the Sûdras are not qualified (for the knowledge of Brahman).
36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications (in the case of the higher castes) and on account of their absence being declared (in the case of the
Sûdras).
That the Sûdras are not qualified, follows from that circumstance also that in different places of the vidyâs such ceremonies as the upanayana and the like are referred to. Compare, for instance,
Sat. Br. XI, 5, 3, 13, 'He initiated him as a pupil;'
Kh. Up. VII, 1, 1, 'Teach me, Sir! thus he approached him;' Pra. Up. I, 1, 'Devoted to Brahman, firm in Brahman, seeking for the highest Brahman they, carrying fuel in their hands, approached the venerable Pippalâda, thinking that he would teach them all that.'--Thus the following passage also, 'He without having made them undergo the upanayana (said) to them' (
Kh. Up. V, 11, 7), shows that the upanayana is a well-established ceremony
1.--
With reference to the Sûdras, on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is frequently mentioned; so, for instance, Manu X, 4, where they are spoken of as 'once born' only ('the Sûdra is the fourth caste, once-born'), and Manu X, 126, 'In the Sûdra there is not any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony.'
37. And on account of (Gautama) proceeding (to initiate
Gâbâla) on the ascertainment of (his) not being that (i.e. a
Sûdra).
The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Gautama, having ascertained Gâbâla not to be a Sûdra from his speaking the truth, proceeded to initiate and instruct him. 'None who is not a Brâhmana would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth' (Kh. Up. IV, 4, 5); which scriptural passage furnishes an inferential sign (of the Sûdras not being capable of initiation).
38. And on account of the prohibition, in Sm
riti, of (the
Sûdras') hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.
The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a
Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a
Sûdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the
Sûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.' The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as
'he is not to impart knowledge to the Sûdra,' and 'to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'--From those
Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Sm
riti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purâ
nas; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).--It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.
Bookmarks