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

by Julius Lipner

  Much has been made of the privileges, and sometimes of the responsibilities, of twice-born status, though it has not always been clear exactly to whom this status applies, as we shall see later. The mark of the (male) twice-born is the sacred thread (yajñopavita), a thin, triple-braided loop usually worn around the left shoulder and down across the chest under the right armpit, as a result of a particular rite of passage.5 This and other rites of twice-born life will be considered in Chapter 13.

  Finally, the Śūdra belongs to the lowest varṇa, which is emphatically not twice-born. That is, by birth, members of this varṇa were not eligible to be initiated into the rights and responsibilities of a life based directly on Vedic study and ritual. Fearful punishments were prescribed in the Dharma Codes for Śūdras who had the temerity even to utter words of the Veda; the twice-born were not even permitted to recite the Veda in their presence. ‘ The ears [of the Śūdra] who listens to the Veda are to be filled with [molten] tin and lac. If he utters [a Vedic text, udāharaṇe] his tongue should be cut out. If he practises [Vedic utterance, dhāraṇe], his body should be broken (śarīrabheda]’ (Gautama Dharma Sūtra, 12.4–6).6 It is quite probable, of course, that these were admonitory or cautionary rather than actual sanctions, but we shall see later how they were reformed or challenged, especially in modern times. As to livelihood, Śūdras must serve the three higher [varṇas], for [as the Veda declares], they came forth from the feet [of the Primordial Man]’.7

  Although, as we shall see, Śūdras could acquire virtue and win ethical approval, they were generally reviled in the texts and were often the subject of unfavourable comparisons, the norm of a despised socio-religious status. In fact, their humanity was discriminated against in highly objectionable ways in terms of modern enlightened standards. This is because they were regarded by the twice-born as ritually polluting agents in some contexts, as an active threat to what was defined as an ideal human status. This impurity was supposed to be a natural characteristic (the descriptive dimension of dharma), which could be controlled and even overcome by a web of socio-religious taboos maintained by both sides of the twice-born divide, but which required constant monitoring lest it actualize its potential. Here we have the roots of what in modern times came to be practised as ‘untouchability’ (to which we shall return in the next chapter).

  Further, the later dharma texts in particular insinuate that the Śūdras have a natural tendency to certain kinds of vice, which they must seek to overcome by the cultivation of the corresponding virtues. Does all this mean that the Śūdras were socially doomed, consigned to their lowly status in life with no prospect of improvement? Not quite. We shall show later that Śūdra status could be fluid and capable of re-interpretation in an upwardly mobile manner. But we must also take into account another fact here that has been an integral part of traditional Hindu thinking, and which the Western reader is inclined to overlook: that of the active possibility of rebirth in the next life in a higher caste. Śūdras in this life could be Brahmins in the next (and vice versa). Small consolation perhaps for those apprised of this fact, whether Hindu or non-Hindu, but a genuine consideration in the (Hindu) psychology of endurance and motivation.

  Nevertheless, in the present life there was not much that the Śūdras were allowed to do about this kind of stereo typing except acquiesce, strive to heed their betters and so hope to win approval in this life and higher, twice-born status in the next. Manu says, [AŚūdra] who is always honest (suci), attentive to his betters((utkṛṣṭaśuśrkṣu)), soft-spoken, humble (anahaṃ kṛta), and dependent on the Brahmin and [other twice-born varṇas], attains a higher birth (utkṛṣṭāṇ jātim) [in the next life]’ (9.335). By the time of Manu, the idea had taken hold that the underlying reason for being born in a particular situation was karma, or the way in which moral actions of previous lives matured in the present one. We shall examine the teaching of karma and rebirth in Chapter 12.

  Who were the Śūdras? In the second half of the nineteenth century, in a climate of growing preoccupation with theories of race and colour superiority, Western orientalists generally held the view that the Śūdras were drawn from the ranks of the colonized Harappans and other indigenous peoples as the Vedic Aryans sought to come to terms with these by miscegenation, intermarriage or other forms of assimilation. Hindu intellectuals by and large raced to adopt this view as a marker of the racial tolerance of the ancient Hindus, which they contrasted sharply with the aloofness shown towards Indians, racially and socially, by their British rulers. B. Upadhyay (1861–1907), a Bengali Brahmin convert to Catholicism and in later life a fierce opponent of British rule in India, whom we have encountered earlier in this book, voiced the view of many of his compatriots among the Hindu intelligentsia when he wrote in a Bengali article entitled varṇāsrama Dharma (1901):

  The criticism that varṇa dharma is inimical to the Śūdra race is unfounded. In ancient times the dark-skinned non-Aryans who worshipped wood, stone, ghosts, ghouls etc. were called Śūdras. They were bitter opponents of Aryan religion. They had to be kept at arm's length lest by mingling with them Aryan blood became contaminated, mixed castes arose and Vedic dharma was obstructed.

  Now the path of progressive development becomes closed at the sudden confluence of an adverse way of life (biruddha-dharma) and inferior race (nīcajāti) on the one hand with a superior race (uccajāti) on the other. Those who were in the majority become a minority and that minority's natural vigour drains away. To prevent the confusion that arises from the creation of mixed castes (saṃkarasṛṣṭi), our Codifiers ruled that contact with the Śūdra race was to be avoided even to the point of not eating and drinking with them. [because] for us commensality indicates social equality. It is because the force of this ancient magnanimity was checked by injunctions and prohibitions that the Aryan race's caste (varṇa), religion (dharma) and purity (śuddhatā) were preserved ...

  Nevertheless, our Codifiers such as Manu etc. probably did not show as much intransigence as the Jewish lawgiver Moses did when he so uncompromisingly cut his people off from the surrounding races of pagan worshippers. And it is doubtful whether the ancient separation between Aryan and non-Aryan can compare with the rigid barrier that even now exists between whites and blacks in the egalitarian and civilized country of America ....8

  It is doubtful if this theory of Śūdra origins can stand up to historical scrutiny, for reasons gone into earlier. Further, there is textual evidence to indicate that Śūdra and other non-twice-born castes included, or arose from, those who had been disgraced or ostracized because of social and other transgressions, such as liaisons and marriages that violated dharmic injunctions. In any case, the Śūdras formed a useful category – socially, religiously, and psychologically – that could act as scapegoats for a hierarchically minded, purity-conscious elite. In some ways this rationale still obtains in contemporary Hindu society, as we shall see later in this book.

  The four āśramas

  So far we have considered varṇa-dharma, the dharma of caste in its theoretical aspect. There was another side to this idealized code of practice known as āśrama-dharma. Āśrama means ‘stopping-’or ‘resting-place’ and refers to four stages of life open to twice-born males. These are (i) brahmacarya, the stage of the religious student or brahmacārin; (ii) gārhasthya, the stage of the married man or householder (gṛhastha); (iii) vānaprasthya, the stage of the forest-dweller or vanaprastha; and (iv) saṃnyāsa, the stage of the renouncer or saṃnyāsin.

  Books on Hinduism sometimes give the impression that the Codes are unanimous in instructing all twice-born males to enter each of these stages in the order given. But this is not the case. The earliest Dharma Sūtras seem to regard a life in one āśrama as desirable (the so-called aikāśramya view), following a period of instruction by the teacher after initiation (‘upanayana) into twice-born life. The āśrama favoured in these Sūtras is that of the married state – after all, it was largely this way of life that made it possible for society to ex
ist and flourish under the aegis of Vedic norms (see Olivelle 1974:27ff.). The other āśramas were permitted and endorsed, but there was no pressure to enter them. The four -āśrama view in its evolved form came to predominate in time – this is reflected in the later Codes – and we will now give an idea of the practices of each āśrama in the context of this developed view.

  Brahmacarya

  The religious student of the first āśrama was called a brahmacārin, that is, one who walks the path (cārin) of brahmā, the Veda's central concern in both senses of brahmā, viz. the Supreme Reality (Brahman) and the inherent power of the sacred utterance. We can understand now why this stage became the first in a man's life – it preserved the centrality of the Veda in one's existence, it made the ‘Aryan’ religion a going concern and, if one wants to be a little cynical, it maintained the authority of the Brahmins who were the guardians of this way of life. In order to enter this āśrama, a youth born into one of the three top varṇas had to be initiated into his second birth, usually by a Brahmin teacher in good standing(though in difficult time she could be initiated by and study under a Kṣatriya or vaiśya teacher).

  In a hymn extolling the brahmacārin, the Atharva Veda says, ‘The teacher initiating the student makes him an embryo within; he bears him in his belly for three nights’.9 This process of ‘being born again’ meant that the initiate was now empowered to utter, study and ponder the Veda, first as a disciple of his teacher and then on his own for the rest of his life. Even if he entered the other āśramas, he was to continue to exercise this prerogative.

  According to the Codes, one is to be initiated while still young – from about 8, 11 and 12 years for a Brahmin, Kṣatriya and vaiśya respectively – though if initiation is delayed to after about 16, 22 and 24 years, one is excommunicated from caste unless and until an appropriate penance has been performed. After this, initiation may take place. After initiation one is supposed to reside with the teacher, hence this stage is sometimes called ācāryakula (residing in the family of the teacher, for the teacher generally had a wife). The period of residence could be from a year to an indefinite stay. It was possible to be a brahmacārin for life, absorbed in the study and practice of the Veda. Doubtless this option was followed only in a very few cases, and presumably the teacher also had a say as to how long he was prepared to tolerate his pupil(s)!

  On entering brahmacarya, the student had entered the school of life in a serious way. Religiously, he had formally come of age, but spiritually and socially he had much to learn. As can be imagined, the teacher and his family had a very important part to play in this formation. Not only was the student initiated into Vedic lore in greater or lesser degree, depending on the length of time he stayed with the teacher, he was also trained in a detailed code of behaviour regulating his relationships with men and women in various walks of life. The student had to follow a strict regimen, with rules governing how he was to conduct himself in the presence of the teacher or the teacher's wife (or co-wives), how he was to dress, what he was permitted to eat, and so on. He was to cultivate especially the virtues of celibacy (both of thought and action), truthfulness, obedience and humility. Even today when a male is said to be a brahmacārin, or a female a brahmacāriṇī, perhaps at a certain stage of their lives or because they are monks or nuns, it is understood that they live a life of strict celibacy. Further, the student was to be self-controlled internally – with respect to will and thought – and externally, shunning dancing, singing, exuberance of any kind, preening himself in any way (by the use of ornaments, oils, etc.), and so on. He was to beg regularly for food and offer it to his teacher. This was his dharma, his way of life, as a brahmacārin.

  This utter reverence for the teacher was symbolized in the literature by the expression ‘approaching the teacher with fuel in hand’; that is, the student was to gather wood regularly to light the sacred fire of the teacher's home in which Vedic rites would be observed. By this act he expressed his subservience to the teacher in the spiritual relationship thus far described. Historically, this relationship lies at the root of the modern phenomenon of the Hindu guru, which we will consider in Chapter 10. But subservience did not mean servility, as it often seems to in modern context. We will return to this matter later.

  Gārhasthya

  When the student finished his instruction, he was to give his teacher a fee (technically called dakṣiṇā) such as his family could afford – perhaps a cow or cows, some gold, or a parasol to keep off sun and rain – and then take a ritual bath. This made him a snataka, i.e. someone who had ritually bathed after completing the brahmacarya stage. He then returned home, which was also celebrated ritually. Under certain conditions, the snātaka phase could be extended (for the fulfilling of vows, undertaking pilgrimages, etc.). snātaka Brahmins, in particular, were to be shown great respect. They were supposed to be granted free passage throughout the land, notwithstanding hostile political boundaries, for they might be fulfilling a vow to undertake some pilgrimage or other. One comes across instances in literature of fugitives and others, not least from the Kṣatriya caste, disguising themselves as snātakas in order to avoid capture.

  The snātaka phase lay at the threshold of the next āśrama, that of marriage and householdership, or gārhasthya. The Codes speak very warmly of this stage. As it was crucial for the stability and propagation of the social order, this āśrama was regarded as the foundation of the other three stages. ‘From what is laid down in Veda and smṛti’, declares Manu (6.89–90), ‘it is the householder among all these others who is said to be the best, for he supports the other three. Just as all kinds of river find rest in the ocean, so all members of the different stages find rest in the householder’ (see also the Vāsiṣṭha Dharma Sūtra 8.14–16). Indeed, some Codes suggest that one could not proceed to the final two āśramas without fulfilling the obligations of this stage, for the householder is the mainstay of Aryan dharma. Together with his wife, he financed and practised Vedic rites, and the maintenance of Vedic rites implied the perpetuation of society and the establishing of world order. This included a practice, called śrāddha, which is of great importance for a Hindu even today, viz. performing a ceremony to recognize and ‘satisfy’ (by making food offerings) one's ancestral spirits, before they assume a new embodiment in the round of rebirth, or before they finally attain liberation. Note again this pragmatic dimension of traditional Hinduism. There is a widespread perception today that Hinduism is a religion of asceticism, that it glorifies the renouncer. To an important extent this is a misrepresentation, both historically and currently. While the renouncer plays an important part in defining the image of Hinduism, Hindus continue to emphasize the mundane dimension of existence, not least by valorizing the role of the householder and the performance of worldly duties.

  The special dharma of the householder was summed up in his obligation to perform regularly the five mahāyajñas or ‘great offerings’. This obligation is described variously in the Codes, but the underlying meaning is the same, i.e. rendering due recognition to key principles of cosmic order and stability: the devas, the ancestors, the various forms of life in this world, human existence, and brahman (as expressed in and through the Veda). As an expression of this affirmation, the householder together with his wife (or co-wives), was enjoined to keep and activate the sacred fires, both of the solemn ritual and the domestic hearth. By doing this he demonstrated his indebtedness to the devas, the ancestors, and brahman. He was also encouraged to procreate, and wherever possible to protect life and offer hospitality to those who visited his home, especially Brahmins;in this way the life forms of this world and human existence were affirmed. This ancient duty undergirds a cultural trait common among Hindus even today, viz. showing hospitality towards friends and strangers.

  Exceptions to these expectations did occur, however. Thus animal sacrifice and other forms of killing, e.g. of an enemy in battle, or punishment by execution, were permissible, so long as these were seen to protect the Vedic way o
f life or to be in accord with Vedic dictates of dharma. We have seen that the solemn Vedic ritual accommodated the ritual killing of animals. Further, the slaughter of animals for the consumption of their meat was permitted from early times. But by the time of Manu (ca. beginning of the Common Era), meat-eating and the slaughter of animals was frowned upon if not condemned by the traditionally orthodox even in the context of the solemn ritual, probably in response to mounting Buddhist, Jain, and Vaiṣṇava criticism. However, in subsequent centuries, those who had been Hinduized in ‘Goddess’ sects such as Tantra and Śaktism, made no bones about performing animal sacrifice to the deity as well as consuming non-vegetarian food. These practices were widespread in the subcontinent, especially in strongholds of Tantric and Sakta religion, like Bengal, and have persisted to the present day. In recent times, as a result of pressure by animal rights groups, legislation is being considered or enacted by states of the Indian Union to ban the killing of animals for religious purposes (rather than for food). There is some way to go in achieving this goal, however.