Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices)

by Julius Lipner

  Once the concepts of dharma and adharma were current, the time was ripe to articulate them in texts that came to be called the Dharma Sūtras and Dharma Śāstras. This can be a confusing distinction not least because the term Śāstra can refer to an authoritative text in general. In this sense, all the Dharma texts are Dharma Śāstras; however, in the context of the ancient Codes of Dharma, some of the main differences between the Dharma sūtras and Dharma Śāstras are as follows.

  In general, although the Dharma sūtras are older and tend to be more succinct than the Śāstras, they are not necessarily perceived as the more authoritative. The former are in prose or in prose mixed with some verse, whereas the Śāstras are almost entirely in verse. Further, the sūtras each tend to be associated with a particular Veda, while the Śāstras are more or less independent in this respect. As to subject matter, like the Gṛhya Sūtras, both the Dharma Sūtras and Śāstras are meant to serve as guidelines for right living and do not claim to be exhaustive (though the Śāstras deal more comprehensively than the Sūtras with some topics, e.g. the duties of the king and criminal law – and may add some of their own, e.g. how the world is produced, how certain mixed castes arise, and so on. In the light of what we have seen about the role of the dharmas in the generation of natural and social order, we should not be surprised that some Dharma texts contain sections on the production of the world).

  However, both the Dharma Sūtras and Dharma Śāstras have many topics in common, such as the codes of conduct governing some of the main rites of passage (e.g. ‘initiation’ or the investiture of the sacred thread for boys, and marriage), and the oblations to the dead (sraddha); which occupations the four caste orders may follow in normal as well as in difficult times; how one may fall from caste and be reinstated, and ways of incurring and cleansing ritual impurity; types of purifying agent (e.g. fire, water, earth, various products of the cow) and how they work; the status of women;the penances to be performed for infringing various rules of dharma, the laws of inheritance, debt, etc.; the duties of kings, and so on. While both kinds of text have these topics in common, their treatment of these subjects often differs, though it would be taking us too far afield to pursue this here.

  It is believed that in ancient times there were numerous Dharma Sūtra texts; almost every Vedic branch and sub-branch had its own Dharma Codes, some differing only in detail, others apparently held in common. Comparatively few of these Codes are extant today. These include the Gautama Dharma Sūtra, which is associated with the Sama Veda, the Baudhayana, Āpastamba, and Vaikhanasa Dharma Sūtras, which are associated with different schools of the Yajur Veda, and the Vasistha Dharma Sūtra, which is associated with the Ṛg Veda. Except for the last named text, which is relatively late (ca. beginning of the Common Era), the other Dharma Sūtras may be dated from about the sixth to the third century B.C.E. Among the Dharma Śāstras which, unlike the Sūtras, may have derived from law schools, we have the Manu Smṛti or Manava-dharma-Śāstra, viz. The Code or Institutes of Manu, which is regarded as the oldest and most important of the Dharma Śāstras (ca. 200 B.C.E.-200 C.E.). We also have the Yājnavalkya Smṛti (ca. beginning of the Common Era), the Nārada Smṛti (second–fourth century C.E.), the Pārasarasmṛti, a more recent composition, which ‘deals with ācāra [‘proper behaviour’] and prāyascitta [‘penance’] only’ (L. Rocher in Flood 2003:108). There is also the Viṣṇu Smṛti which may have been based on an earlier Viṣṇu Dharma Sütra, to the core of which verses may have been added so as to give the text a Vaiṣṇava slant (ibid.:108–9).

  From 1772 onwards ... the ancient dharmasāstras – rather, the entire, undefined body of Sanskrit dharmasästra literature – were elevated en bloc to the rank of law books to be used by the Anglo-Indian courts of law [in the sphere of British influence in India] to decide civil and religious disputes among Hindus ... [I]t was the need to understand the legal sections of the dharmasästras in the original, that became the first and primary incentive for British judges in India to embark on the study of the Sanskrit language.

  (Rocherin Flood 2003:112–13)

  Two Dharma Sāstras in particular, the Manu Smṛti (abbv. Manu) and the Yājnavalkya Smṛti, have exercised particular influence up to modern times. Manu came to have a very wide authority in Hindu society at large and has traditionally been the most widely quoted of the Dharma Sāstras. Vijnānesvara's Mitāksara, on the other hand (eleventh–twelfth century C.E.), a commentary on the Yājnavalkya Smṛti, was strongly influential in Bengal and areas of northern India. The Brahmin pandits produced endless chains of manuals or digests (paddhatis or nibandhas) which, they claimed, were based on the ancient Dharma Codes, as adaptations for local or specific use. In so far as pandits are looked up to today as guides or teachers by other castes, e.g. when they act as family or temple priests, a role that continues to be widespread, they continue to consult either the more ancient Codes or these derivative texts. Thus the Law Codes remain relevant in modern times.

  The fact that there are a number of ancient Law Codes, not to mention the great many manuals and digests, indicates that no one treatise had absolute authority, even in local circumstances. Hindus are pragmatic people;they also relish debate. One dharma text could be pitted against another, not only by those who dispense dharma as it were, but also by those on the receiving end. Dharma has always been susceptible to manipulation, for a consideration. This is because the dharma of the treatises has generally been seen as an ideal, and has been implemented only selectively.

  Let us now move from the more abstract to the particular and inquire into the concept of varṇāśrama dharma, or the dharma of ‘caste’ (varṇa) and the different stages of life (āśramas). In this context, the Dharma Codes focus on a righteous lifestyle for men. To balance this, we must also undertake an inquiry into strī-dharma, or dharma for women. Considering these topics will be our task in the next chapter.

  6

  The voice of tradition: smṛti and its divisions (II)

  The four varṇas

  In the Ŗg Vedic hymn to the Cosmic Man mentioned earlier (RV. 10.90), there is a verse whose importance should not be underestimated. Remember that the hymn speaks of the generation of another, Primordial Man (puruṣa) from the Cosmic Man (verse 5). This latter Man was sacrificed by devas and this gave rise to our world of visible and invisible being. It also gave rise to, or perhaps ratified, the concept of an ideal Vedic social order:

  His mouth became the Brahmin.

  Both arms were made the one who protects and rules (rājanya),

  His thighs became the trader (vaiśya).

  The servant (śūdra) was born from his feet.

  (verse 12)

  If ‘caste’ refers to the way Hindu society is structured, then this verse represents the first authoritative occurrence in Hindu literature of the hierarchy of caste. Note that it is a hierarchy, descending from the ritually pure level of the head and mouth (from which Vedic utterance is emitted) to the ritually impure level of the feet. This hierarchy is placed in a religious context: the sacrifice (yajña) of the Primordial Man generates the four caste-orders, viz. those of the Brahmin, the RāJanya or Kṣatriya (in subsequent literature the two were identified), the vaiśya, and the Śūdra. The organic nature of the Primordial Man also implies that the hierarchy is somehow organic and natural. These features of the caste hierarchy were not lost on the dharma-codifiers, not least on the influential Manu which clearly alludes to the Ŗg Vedic verse in I.87.1 The force of this verse echoes throughout Hindu tradition, and was resorted to again and again by those who sought to preserve the traditional hierarchy. It seems to have been a popular teaching from early times, popular enough to have been mocked by the Theravada Buddhists in their scriptures. Richard Gombrich writes:

  [The Buddha] was more concerned to deflate brahmins than to build up a sociological theory of his own;he poked fun at the Hymn of the Cosmic Man (whom the brahmins of the day evidently identified with Brahmā [viz. Prajāpati, the fashioner o
f beings]): ‘Brahmins say that they are the children of Brahma, born from his mouth;and yet brahmin ladies, one notices, menstruate, get pregnant, give birth and give suck.’

  (1988:77)2

  This Vedic verse became a bone of contention in modern times in the debates between reformers and conservatives about caste and its inherent socio-religious values. Let us look more closely at the traditional link between dharma and caste.

  First, we must make a clarification. So far we have been speaking somewhat loosely about caste in general. More precisely, the concept of caste in India can be considered under two headings – those of varṇa and jāti. We shall consider varṇa in this chapter and jāti in the next.

  In its obvious meaning, varṇa refers to the appearance of something, to form or colour, or to type, group or kind. We find the term used with significance in the Ṛg Veda, two examples being RV. 2.12.4 and 3.34.9. Both verses come from hymns to the dynamic, martial, tawny-coloured (‘hari) deva Indra, special protector of the Vedic Aryans in battle. In 2.12.4, Indra is praised for dispersing the ‘lower Dāsa varṇa’ (yo dāsam varṇam adharaṃ guhākaṣ). The Dāsas were the enemies of the Indo-Aryans, so it is not surprising that they are called ‘lower’ or ‘inferior’. But ‘lower’ or ‘inferior’ in what respect, we may ask. Does the term varṇa, which agrees grammatically with ‘Dāsa’, help answer this question?

  In traditional scholarship, varṇa here has been translated as ‘colour’, implying that the Vedic Aryans, of Indo-European ancestry and so presumably light-skinned, are making a racial comment about the ‘inferior’, viz. darker, Dāsas, who are the indigenous inhabitants of the Harappan civilization. The darker skin of the Dāsas is supposed to indicate that they have an inferior language and religion. This interpretation was backed up by reference to texts like RV. 3.34.9, which speaks of Indra choosing the ‘golden’ and therefore, one assumes, better portion (perhaps a reference to the lighter-skinned Vedic Aryans?), and as smiting enemies of these ‘Aryans’, this time called Dasyus, while he watches over the ‘Aryan varṇa’. Here again, in the context of this interpretation, varṇa has lent itself to being translated as‘colour’.

  This interpretation has some plausibility, not least with the hindsight that in modern times there is plenty of evidence to show that in the subcontinent a conquering fair-skinned people have viewed their darker-skinned subjects with similar disdain. However, this interpretation is bedevilled by two problems. First, it relies on the assumption that the Vedic Aryans, who presumably migrated at a later stage into India, were racially different from the Dāsas and Dasyus, of which a visible mark was fairer skin. But we have seen in an earlier chapter that the theory that the Vedic Indians were late migrants into the subcontinent is contested, and, perhaps more tellingly, that there is no material evidence, such as that derived from skeletal remains, to support the assumption of different racial types interacting in this way. Secondly, while the terms ‘Dāsa’ and ‘dasyu’ may well have been used to refer to human enemies, they also refer in the Veda to hostile spirits or sprites; in the latter case, there need be no connotations in varṇa’ of a darker colour. If that is so, why should we assume that colour enters into the identification of the human enemies? Perhaps, after all, ‘varṇa’ in such contexts of the Ŗg Veda simply means something like ‘type’ or ‘particular group’ – that is, in our examples, Indra favoured one group of people who spoke and acted in a certain way, over their enemies who behaved in a different, and so, ‘inferior’, manner. Or perhaps ‘vama’ did refer to colour but in a symbolic rather than naturalistic sense. On this, Gombrich offers the following explanation:

  These four ranked social groups are known in Sanskrit by the word varṇa, which primarily means ‘colour. The colours were apparently symbolic. Later texts associate white with the brahmin, red with the kṣatriya, yellow with the vaiśya and black with the śūdra. It has nothing to do with skin pigmentation or a colour bar.

  (ibid.:39)

  In any case, there seems to be little scope in the Ṛg Veda to interpret ‘vama’ as referring to darker aboriginals whom the Vedic Aryans encountered on their entry into the subcontinent and subsequently absorbed as the lowest stratum into their social hierarchy because of their ‘inferior’, darker, colour. In short, the racial/‘colour’ theory of the term's application seems to be, if you will forgive the expression, something of a red herring.

  Be that as it may, the śrauta, Gṛhya and Dharma Sūtras (but especially the Dharma Codes) ratify socio-religious stratification in terms of a four-tiered ideal called the catur-varṇa (‘‘four kinds/colours’), made up in descending order of Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śūdras. This follows the hierarchy mentioned in the hymn of the Cosmic Man. It seems that from very early times the prevailing view was that membership of each varṇa was generally to be determined by birth as also by some natural attributes. Functioning as a Brahmin became hereditary, and the other strata were likewise linked to hereditary occupations. One was born into the caste hierarchy. The following observations, in accordance with the intentions of the ancient texts, must be taken to apply representatively to men. We shall comment on the status of women later.

  In theory, the Brahmins had the most exalted status and were set up as the unattainable model of society in many respects (by the Brahmin codifiers themselves, it must be admitted, with more or less reluctant compliance by the members of the other castes). The Brahmins were given this status because in the first instance, by hereditary occupation, they presided over the most important form of available power: that of the sacrificial ritual which was the agent of temporal and spiritual well-being. The Veda itself attests to the pre-eminence of Brahmins. For example, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa not infrequently refers to Brahmins as ‘gods among humans’ or ‘human gods’ (mānuṣya-devāṣ).3 They were the earthly counterparts of the devas in heaven, and as a caste ritually the most pure. This meant that ideally, through their behaviour and practices, they were the model of how a human being was to define himself (since this was a gender-specific ideal) as a human in this world.

  The dharma-codifiers reinforced this status. Manu says: ‘The Brahmin is the master (prabhu) of the varṇas because of his superiority, the pre-eminence of his nature and origin [from the Primordial Man; prakṛtiśraiṣṭhyāt], his protection of the precepts [enjoined by religion], and the distinctiveness of the rites [marking the different phases of his life]’ (10.3). There is more than a hint here that this overall mastery derives not only from function but also from natural attributes bestowed by birth. One's varṇa-status is a congenital matter; this is what ritual purity here implies. The Brahmin's special duty is to serve the Veda by reciting, practising and teaching it – he originated from the mouth of the Primordial Man – with all that this entails, namely performance of the sacrificial and domesticritual, living an exemplary life of prescribed dharma, instructing in the observance of dharma, receiving donations so that the donor can acquire merit, and so on. We are still in the realm of the ideal here (in the next chapter we shall look at the reality on the ground).

  The KṣAtriya is next in the hierarchy. Ideally, it is from the KṣAtriya-varṇa that the kings and rulers of society are to be drawn, as also those who physically protect the community. The duty of the king or ruler is to ensure that dharma reigns by the use of daṇḍa or the rod of authority, and that a suitable milieu prevails so that all members of society can follow their appropriate dharma. If necessary, this is to be achieved by force of arms, either defensively or preemptively. In the history of Hinduism, the ideal of the warrior who is prepared to make any sacrifice, even to the point of giving up his life, to protect society out of a sense of dharma has been a potent one. It has continued into present times. India has fought several wars since independence with its neighbour Pakistan in the context of which this ideal has been invoked, implicitly or explicitly, by Hindus (not least militant fundamentalists). This gives fresh impetus to reconsider the current image of Hinduism whi
ch Westerners tend to have, especially as a result of publicity given to the life of ‘Mahātmā’ Gandhi, that it is a religion that preaches non-violence. Hindus themselves are generally aware that their tradition teaches a more complex relationship between violence and non-violence than this image suggests. In fact, the vast swathe of Hindu literature and tradition often glorifies or condones violence in many forms in various circumstances, ranging from the performance of animal sacrifice, through endorsement of ‘suttee’ or cremating the widow on the funeral pyre of her husband, to taking part in a righteous war. On the other hand, numerous texts recommend non-violence (ahiṃsā) as a moral ideal. We will comment on this tension in another context.

  Next in order is the vaiśya varṇa. The particular duty of the vaiśya is to engage in trade, agriculture and commerce so that a flourishing community is built up to enable dharma to be established on a sound economic footing. After all, the vaiśya is supposed to have originated from the thighs of the Primordial Man. The vaiśya is thus meant to prop up society, to give it economic stability.

  These first three varṇas are regarded as ‘twice-born’ or dvija. The first birth is physical, common to all members of society; the second birth, however, is a ritual and spiritual one, the result of initiation into Vedic study and Veda-based ritual through a rite of passage (the investiture of the sacred thread). The Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra says: ‘[The teacher] gives birth [to the student – who has received the sacred thread] through knowledge. That is the best birth’ (1.1.1.15–16).4 Thus, although members of each of the twice-born varṇas are enjoined to practise a particular form of livelihood and the specific virtues compatible with this, as twice-born they have many duties and practices in common.

  Further, the dharma-texts allow for flexibility in the practice of one's livelihood in calamitous circumstances; this was governed by what was called āpad-dharma, dharma in times of misfortune or distress. In such circumstances, a Brahmin or vaiśya could take up arms, for instance, or a twice-born could forego certain daily rituals. But even here there were boundaries one could not, or did not, cross, e.g. a Brahmin adopting an occupation that was quite unacceptable from the point of view of ritual purity, such as the carrying or disposing of corpses. There are poignant stories in modern times of many upper-caste Hindus dying of hunger in famine, not because there was a lack of certain livelihoods or kinds of food, but because they refused to perform jobs or eat various items that they regarded as forbidden by their caste. This is not necessarily the result of a haughty attitude. It is well known that, when a certain way of life has been ingrained in a family or community for generations, together with its attendant psycho-moral justifications, it can be very difficult indeed to bring oneself to transgress these norms, even in desperate circumstances.