Ascetics and Brahmins Studies in Ideologies and Institutions 9780857284327, 0857284320, 9781843318026, 1843318024

Citation preview

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Cultural, Historical and Textual Studies of Religions The volumes featured in the Anthem Cultural, Historical and Textual Studies of Religions series are the expression of an international community of scholars committed to the reshaping of the field of textual and historical studies of religions. Titles in this series examine practice, ritual, and other textual religious products, crossing different area studies and time frames. Featuring a vast range of interpretive perspectives, this innovative series aims to enhance the way we look at religious traditions.

Series Editor Federico Squarcini, University of Firenze, Italy

Editorial Board Piero Capelli, University of Venezia, Italy Vincent Eltschinger, ICIHA, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria Christoph Emmrich, University of Toronto, Canada James Fitzgerald, Brown University, USA Jonardon Ganeri, University of Sussex, UK Barbara A. Holdrege, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA Sheldon Pollock, Columbia University, USA Karin Preisendanz, University of Vienna, Austria Alessandro Saggioro, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, University of Lausanne and EPHE, France Romila Thapar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India Ananya Vajpeyi, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA Marco Ventura, University of Siena, Italy Vincenzo Vergiani, University of Cambridge, UK

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS STUDIES IN IDEOLOGIES AND INSTITUTIONS

Patrick Olivelle

Anthem Press An imprint of Wimbledon Publishing Company www.anthempress.com This edition first published in UK and USA 2011 by ANTHEM PRESS 75-76 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HA, UK or PO Box 9779, London SW19 7ZG, UK and 244 Madison Ave. #116, New York, NY 10016, USA Copyright © Patrick Olivelle 2011 The author asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work. Graphics and layout © Mario Caricchio Cover photography © Clelia Pellicano All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested. ISBN-13: 978 0 85728 432 7 (Hbk) ISBN-10: 0 85728 432 0 (Hbk) This title is also available as an eBook.

Contents

Abbreviations

7

Preface

9

1. Introduction to Renunciation in the Hindu Traditions

11

2. The Ascetic and the Domestic in Brahmanical Religiosity

27

3. Village vs. Wilderness: Ascetic Ideals and the Hindu World

43

4. A Definition of World Renunciation

63

5. From Feast to Fast: Food and the Indian Ascetic

71

6. The Beast and the Ascetic: The Wild in the Indian Religious Imagination

91

7. Deconstruction of the Body in Indian Asceticism

101

8. Contributions to the Semantic History of Sa∫nyåsa

127

9. The Semantic History of å†rama

145

10. Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

165

11. Odes of Renunciation

197

12. Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

207

6

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

13. The Renouncer’s Staff: triviß™abdha, tridañ∂a, and ekadañ∂a

231

14. Pa∞camå†ramavidhi: Rite for Becoming a Naked Ascetic

249

15. Ånandatœrtha’s Sa∫nyåsapaddhati: A Handbook for Madhvaite Ascetics

263

16. Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

271

17. King and Ascetic: State Control of Asceticism in the Artha†åstra

293

Bibliography

307

Index

319

Abbreviations

AÅ AB ÅpDh ÅrU A‡ ņG® A†rU AU AV BDh BhG BraU B®AU B®D B®Sm BSaU BU CU DN GDh GoB IIJ JåbU JaiB JMV JUB KS KSm K†rU KßU

Aitareya Årañyaka Aitareya Bråhmaña Åpastamba Dharmasütra Åruñi Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) Artha†åstra ņvalåyana G®hyasütra ņrama Upanißad Aitareya Upanißad Atharva Veda Baudhåyana Dharmasütra Bhagavad Gœtå Brahma Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) B®had-Avadhüta Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) B®had Devatå B®haspati Sm®ti B®hat-Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) B®hadårañyaka Upanißad Chåndogya Upanißad Dœgha Nikåya Gautama Dharmasütra Gopatha Bråhmaña Indo-Iranian Journal Jåbåla Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) Jaiminœya Bråhmaña Jœvanmuktiviveka of Vidyårañya Jaiminœya-Upanißad-Bråhmaña Kå™haka Sa∫hitå of the Black Yajur Veda Kåtyåyana Sm®ti Ka™ha†ruti Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) Kaußœtaki Upanißad

8

Ln LSaU MaiU MåñU MBh MDh MK MN Mnp MS MuñU NpvU Nrd NSm PåM PhpU PhU Pms PU Råm ¥V Sa∫U ‡åõG® ‡å™U ‡B SN SuNi SV ‡vU TB TS TU TurU VaDh VeS ViDh Vin VkhDh VkhG VS WZKS Ybh YDh YDhS Yls YPra YU

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Liõganirüpaña. The third chapter of Yådava Prakå†a’s Yatidharmasamuccaya. Ed. and tr. in Olivelle 1986—87. See also Olivelle 1995a Laghu-Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) Maitreya Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) Mañ∂ükya Upanißad Mahåbhårata Månava Dharma†åstra Mœmå∫så-ko†a Majjhima Nikåya Mœmå∫så-nyåya-prakå†a Maitråyañœ Sa∫hitå of the Black Yajur Veda Muñ∂aka Upanißad Nåradaparivråjaka Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) Ånandånubhava, Nyåyaratnadœpåvali. Ed. and tr. in Olivelle 1986—87 Nårada Sm®ti Pårå†ara-Mådhavœya. Mådhava’s commentary on the Parå†ara-sm®ti Paramaha∫sa-parivråjaka Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) Paramaha∫sa Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) Pürva-mœmå∫så-sütra of Jaimini. Pra†na Upanißad Råmåyaña ¥g Veda Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) ‡åõkhåyana G®hyasütra ‡å™yåyanœya Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) ‡atapatha Bråhmaña Sa∫yutta Nikåya Sutta Nipåta Såma Veda ‡vetå†vatara Upanißad Taittirœya Bråhmaña Taittirœya Sa∫hitå of the Black Yajur Veda Taittirœya Upanißad Turyåtœtåvadhüta Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992) Vasiß™ha Dharmasütra Vedånta Sütra Vißñu Dharmasütra Vinaya Pi™aka Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra Vaikhånasa G®hyasütra Våjanaseyi Sa∫hitå of the White Yajur Veda Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens Yatiliõgabhedabhaõgavåda. The 64th chapter of Vedånta De†ika’s ‡atadüßañœ. Ed. and tr. in Olivelle 1986—87. Yåj∞avalkya Dharma†åstra Yatidharmasa∫graha of Vi†ve†vara Sarasvatœ Yatiliõgasamarthana. The tenth chapter of Varadaråjasüri’s Prameyamålå. Ed. and tr. in Olivelle 1986—87. Yatidharmaprakå†a of Våsudevå†rama (Olivelle 1976—77) Yåj∞avalkya Upanißad (Schrader 1912, Olivelle 1992)

Preface

This is the second volume of my collected papers. The first was published under the title Language, Texts, and Society: Explorations in Ancient Indian Culture and Religion, in the same series as this volume. That volume included papers dealing with Indian culture and religion in general and with ancient Sanskrit texts. The present volume brings together papers dealing specifically with Indian asceticism. This volume was also the brainchild of Federico Squarcini. I thank him for his assiduous work on both volumes. The papers included in this volume span thirty years. Many represent my earliest work. It is quite natural that as one matures both in years and, hopefully, in wisdom, one’s approaches and theoretical models change. It would have been impractical and unwise to rewrite all my earlier papers. Wherever necessary I have added notes to indicate my evolving views; sometimes I have improved my prose; and frequently, I have updated the bibliography and added the Sanskrit text to translations. I have deleted portions that were redundant because of other works I have published subsequently. Even though some of these papers are now dated, I hope bringing them together in a single volume will prove to be helpful to scholars and students. Most of the individuals who have helped my intellectual development over the years I have thanked in the preface to the first volume of my collected papers. In my early years in the academe when many of the papers collected here were written, the Department of Religious Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, provided a nurturing atmosphere. I thank all my colleagues there for many happy and productive years. Two of my students helped me with the preparation of this volume. Spencer Johnson made electronic versions of many of the papers written before the advent of the computer. Mark McClish prepared the index.

10

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

My wife Suman has been a collaborator in all my research endeavors, especially those involving the painstaking reading of manuscripts. My daughter Meera, now a wonderful young —recently married— woman, bore with patience and good humor the strange activities of her parents. Patrick Olivelle Austin, March 2006

1. Introduction to Renunciation in the Hindu Traditions*

Shaven-headed and clad in yellow-orange robes—whether they are Buddhist monks in Thailand, Sadhus in the Indian countryside, or Hare Krishnas in American airports—that is the enduring image of Indian religion that many westerners carry in their minds. The cultural institution behind these modern manifestations, an institution which we have chosen to call the “renouncer tradition”, is very old. It goes back to about the middle of the first millennium BCE and took shape along the mid-Gangetic plane in roughly what is today the state of Bihar. The image of Indian religion as essentially world-renouncing and ascetic (Dumont 1960), however, is grossly inaccurate. Yet, behind that image lies a kernel of truth: the renouncer tradition has been a central and important ingredient in the socio-cultural mix that contributed to the formation of the historical religions in India. As any human institution, nevertheless, that kernel and the Indian religions themselves changed over time and space. The earliest historical information about the renouncer tradition comes from the Upanißads and other Vedic writings, as well as from Buddhist literary sources. Given the uncertainly of their dates, however, it is impossible to give a precise or certain date to the origin of that tradition: hence, my vague reference to “the middle of the first millennium BCE.” The earliest datable source that attests to the existence of the renouncer tradition is the A†okan inscriptions of the middle of the third century BCE. Around this time, if I may be permitted to generalize, two competing ascetic traditions appear to have crystallized: anchorites living settled lives in forest hermitages cut off * Originally published as “The Renouncer Tradition” in The Companion to Hinduism, ed. Gavin Flood, pp. 271—87. Oxford: Blackwell.

12

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

from social intercourse, and renouncers living itinerant lives in the wilderness but in interaction with towns and villages from which they begged their food. An ancient Brahmanical law book describes the normative lifestyle of anchorites: An anchorite shall live in the forest, living on roots and fruits and given to austerities. He kindles the sacred fire according to the procedure for recluses and refrains from eating what is grown in a village. He may also avail himself of the flesh of animals killed by predators. He should not step on plowed land or enter a village. He shall wear matted hair and clothes of bark or skin and never eat anything that has been stored for more than a year. (GDh 3.26—35)

The anchorite’s life is marked by his refusal to avail himself of any product mediated by human culture. His clothing and food come from the wild; he is not permitted to step on ploughed land, the symbol of human culture and society. The anchorite has physically withdrawn from society, even though he continues to participate in some of the central religious activities of society, such as maintaining a ritual fire and performing rituals. At least some of the anchorites may have lived in family units; we hear often of wives and children living in forest hermitages. The renouncer, on the other hand, lives in proximity to civilized society and in close interaction with it. A mendicant shall live without any possessions, be chaste, and remain in one place during the rainy season. Let him enter a village only to obtain almsfood and go on his begging round late in the evening, without visiting the same house twice and without pronouncing blessings. He shall control his speech, sight, and actions; and wear a garment to cover his private parts, using, according to some, a discarded piece of cloth after washing it. Outside the rainy season, he should not spend two nights in the same village. He shall be shaven-headed or wear a topknot; refrain from injuring seeds; treat all creatures alike, whether they cause him harm or treat him with kindness; and not undertake ritual activities. (GDh 3.11—25)

The renouncer’s withdrawal from society is not physical but ideological. He does not participate in the most central of socio-religious institutions: family and sex, ritual fire and ritual activities, a permanent residence, and wealth and economic activities. He is a religious beggar, depending on social charity for his most basic needs. Of these two ascetic institutions, the one that became central to the development of Indian religions and cultures was the renouncer tradition. The hermit culture became obsolete at least by the beginning of the common era and lived on only in poetic imagination; some of the most beloved of Indian poetry and drama, including the two great epics, Råmåyaña and Mahåbhårata, center around hermit life in the forest. ‡akuntalå, the famous Indian heroine

Renunciation in Hindu Traditions

13

immortalized by the Sanskrit playwright Kålidåsa, was a girl living in a forest hermitage. But it had little historical influence on Indian religion. 1.1. The Origins There is a long-standing and ongoing scholarly debate regarding the origin of the renouncer tradition. To simplify a somewhat intricate issue, some contend that the origins of Indian asceticism in general and of the renouncer tradition in particular go back to the indigenous non-Aryan population (Bronkhorst 1993, Pande 1978, Singh 1972). Others, on the contrary, see it as an organic and logical development of ideas found in the Vedic religious culture (Heesterman 1964). It is time, I think, to move beyond this sterile debate and artificial dichotomy. They are based, on the one hand, on the false premise that the extant Vedic texts provide us with an adequate picture of the religious and cultural life of that period spanning over half a millennium. These texts, on the contrary, provide only a tiny window into this period, and that too only throws light on what their priestly authors thought it important to record. They are based, on the other hand, on the untenable conviction that we can isolate Aryan and non-Aryan strands in the Indian culture a millennium or more removed from the original and putative Aryan migrations. It is obvious that the ancient Indian society comprised numerous racial, ethnic, and linguistic groups and that their beliefs and practices must have influenced the development of Indian religions. It is quite a different matter, however, to attempt to isolate these different strands at any given point in Indian history (Olivelle 1993, 1995b). It is a much more profitable exercise to study the social, economic, political, and geographical factors along the Gangetic valley during the middle of the first millennium BCE that may have contributed to the growth of ascetic institutions and ideologies (Olivelle 1993, Gombrich 1988). This was a time of radical social and economic change, a period that saw the second urbanization in India—after the initial one over a millennium earlier in the Indus Valley—with large kingdoms, state formation, a surplus economy, and long-distance trade. Ambition, strategy, drive, and risk taking all played a role in both a king’s quest for power and a merchant’s pursuit of wealth. A similar spirit of individual enterprise is evident in a person’s decision to leave home and family and to become a wandering mendicant. The new social and economic realities of this period surely permitted and even fostered the rise of rival religious ideologies and modes of life. 1.2. The Formative Period of Indian Religions The second half of the first millennium BCE was the period that created many of the ideological and institutional elements that char-

14

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

acterize later Indian religions.1 The renouncer tradition played a central role during this formative period of Indian religious history. Renouncers often formed groups around prominent and charismatic ascetic leaders, groups that often developed into major religious organizations. Some of them, such as Buddhism and Jainism, survived as major religions; others, such as the Åjœvakas, existed for many centuries before disappearing. Renunciation was at the heart of these religions. Even though the ideal of homeless wandering is often maintained as a theological fiction, many of these renouncer groups, such as the Buddhist and the Jain, organized themselves into monastic communities with at least a semi-permanent residence. These communities vied with each other to attract lay members, donors, and benefactors, and for political patronage. A significant feature of these celibate communities is that they were voluntary organizations, the first such religious organizations perhaps in the entire world, and their continued existence depended on attracting new members. Another was the admission, at least in some traditions such as the Buddhist and the Jain, of women and the creation of female monastic communities. If voluntary celibate communities that rejected marriage was remarkable even for men, it must certainly have been revolutionary in the case of women. The influence of renouncer practices and ideologies was not limited to what we have come to regard as non-Hindu or “heterodox” traditions; their influence can be seen within the Brahmanical tradition itself. Indeed, during this early period of Indian history the very division into “orthodox” and “heterodox” is anachronistic and presents a distorted historical picture. Scholars in the past have argued that some of the changes within the Brahmanical tradition, such as the creation of the å†rama (orders of life) system, was instituted as a defense mechanism against the onslaught of renunciation. Evidence does not support such claims. The Brahmanical tradition was not a monolithic entity. The debates, controversies, and struggles between the new ideologies and lifestyles of renunciation and the older ritualistic religion took place as much within the Brahmanical tradition as between it and the new religions (Olivelle 1993). This struggle created new institutions and ideas with that tradition, the å†rama system being one of the more remarkable and enduring. Some of the fundamental values and beliefs that we commonly associate with Indian religions in general and Hinduism in particular were at least in part the creation of the renouncer tradition. These include the two pillars of Indian theologies: sa∫såra—the belief that life in this world is one of suffering and subject to repeated deaths and births (rebirth); mokßa/nirvåña—the goal of human 1 For a detailed study of this period see Olivelle 2006b.

Renunciation in Hindu Traditions

15

existence and, therefore, of the religious quest is the search for liberation from that life of suffering. All later Indian religious traditions and sects are fundamentally ideologies that map the processes of Sa∫såra and Mokßa and technologies that provide humans the tools for escaping sa∫såric existence. Such technologies include different forms of yoga and meditation. An offshoot of these ideologies and technologies is the profound anti-ritualism evident in most later traditions. In the areas of ethics and values, moreover, renunciation was principally responsible for the ideals of non-injury (ahi∫så) and vegetarianism. Several of the renouncer movements that turned into major religions were founded by people who had renounced the world, Gautama Buddha and the Jina Mahåvœra in the case of Buddhism and Jainism. Within these religions the monastic communities are at the center of both theology and ecclesiastical structure. Within the Brahmanical tradition, on the other hand, the situation was more complex. In the old Vedic religion, the Brahmin was the ritual specialist and religious leader, but these very functions required that he get married and father children, activities diametrically opposed to renunciation. We will examine diverse attempts to integrate the ideals of these two poles of the tradition at both the institutional and the theological level. The tension between the two ideals of religious living, however, continued to exist throughout the history of the Brahmanical and Hindu traditions. 1.3. Values in Conflict The debate on the conflicting value systems of renunciation and the society-oriental Vedic religion is recorded in many early texts and revolved especially around the male obligation to marry, father offspring, and carry out ritual duties. These obligations were given theological expression is a novel doctrine, probably the result of that very debate on values. The “doctrine of debts” posited that a man is born with three debts—to gods, ancestors, and Vedic seers—debts from which one can be freed only by offering sacrifices, begetting offspring, and studying the Vedas. An ancient text waxes eloquent on the importance of a son, who is viewed as the continuation of the father and the guarantor of his immortality: A debt he pays in him, And immortality he gains, The father who sees the face Of his son born and alive. Greater than the delights That earth, fire, and water Bring to living beings, Is a father’s delight in his son. (AB 7.13)

16

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

And in what appears to be a dig at ascetic claims, the same text continues: What is the use of dirt and deer skin? What profit in beard and austerity? Seek a son, O Brahmin, He is the world free of blame.

The proponents of ascetic and renunciatory values, on the other hand, dismiss these claims for sons and rituals. Their view of immortality and liberation is centered not on outward activities but on inward self-cultivation. Sons, sacrifices, and riches only guarantee the return to a new life of suffering within the wheel of sa∫såra. An Upanißad comments on the futility of sacrifices: Surely, they are floating unanchored, these eighteen forms of the sacrifice, the rites within which are called inferior; The fools who hail that as the best, return once more to old age and death. (MuñU 1.2.7)

The Upanißads also devalue the importance of marriage and progeny: This immense, unborn self is none other than the one consisting of perception here among the vital functions. It is when they desire him as their world that wandering ascetics undertake the ascetic life of wandering. It was when they knew this that men of old did not desire offspring, reasoning “Ours is this self, and it is our world. What then is the use of offspring for us?” (BU 4.4.22)

This conflict in values and ideologies is often presented as a contrast between village and wilderness, the normative geographical spaces of society and renunciation. People inhabiting these spaces are destined to vastly different paths after death, the villagers returning back to the misery of earthly existence and ascetics proceeding to immortality: Now, the people who know this, and the people here in the wilderness who venerate thus: “Austerity is faith”—they pass into the flame, from the flame into the day, from the day into the fortnight of the waxing moon, from the fortnight of the waxing moon into the six months when the sun moves north, from these months into the year, from the year into the sun, from the sun into the moon, and from the moon into lightning. Then a person who is not human—he leads them to brahman. This is the path leading to the gods. The people here in villages, on the other hand, who venerate thus: “Gift-giving is offerings to gods and to priests”—they pass into the smoke, from the smoke into the night, from the night into the fortnight of the waning moon, and from the fortnight of the waning moon into the six months when the sun moves south. These do not reach the

Renunciation in Hindu Traditions

17

year but from these months pass into the world of the fathers, and from the world of the fathers into space, and from space into the moon. This is King Soma, the food of the gods, and the gods eat it. They remain there as long as there is a residue, and then they return by the same path they went. (CU 5.10.1—2)

The theological debates concerning the two value systems took place as much within the Brahmanical circles as between the so-called orthodox Brahmanism and the heterodox sects. The intense discussion between K®ßña and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gœtå on the issue of the relative value of renunciation and engagement in one’s socially appointed duties is a classic example of such controversy and debate. 1.4. The ņrama System The system of four å†ramas (orders of life) was an early attempt to institutionalize renunciation within Brahmanical social structures. Created probably around the fourth century BCE, the system in its original form proposed four alternate modes of religious living that young adults could pursue after they had completed their period of temporary studentship following Vedic initiation. These were: continuing to be a student until death, getting married and setting up a household, withdrawing to the forest as a hermit, or becoming a renouncer (Olivelle 1993). This system, first recorded in the early Dharmasütras composed between the 2nd and 3rd centuries BCE, envisaged a free choice among the å†ramas, which were viewed as permanent and lifelong vocations. Here is one of the oldest descriptions of the å†ramas: There are four orders of life: the householder’s life, living at the teacher’s house, the life of a sage, and that of a forest hermit. If a man remains steadfast in any of these, he attains bliss. A common prerequisite for all is to live at the teacher’s house following one’s initiation, and all are required not to abandon Vedic learning. After he has learnt the rites, he may undertake the order that he prefers. Following the rules of a novice student, a student should serve his teacher until death, leaving his body in his teacher’s house. Next, the wandering ascetic. From that very state, remaining chaste, he goes forth. With regard to him they admonish: “He should live as a silent sage, without fire or house, without shelter or protection.” Speaking only when he is engaged in private Vedic recitation and obtaining food from a village to sustain himself, he should live without any concern for this world or the next. Discarded clothes are prescribed for him. Some say that he should go completely naked. Abandoning truth and falsehood, pleasure and pain, the Vedas, this world and the next, he should seek the Self. When he gains insight, he attains bliss. Next, the forest hermit. From that very state, remaining chaste, he goes forth. With regard to him they admonish: “He should live as a silent sage with a single fire, but without house, shelter, or protection.” Let him speak only when he is engaged in private Vedic recitation. Clothes made of materials from the wild are prescribed for him. (ÅpDh 2.21.1—22.1)

18

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

The term å†rama is somewhat new in the Sanskrit vocabulary and was probably coined to express a new reality. Contrary to the common perception, the term did not refer to ascetic habitats or modes of life, if by “ascetic” we understand values and institutions that oppose Brahmanical values centered around the householder. On the contrary, å†rama is a fundamentally Brahmanical concept and is absent outside Brahmanical discourse. It referred originally to habitats and life styles of exceptional Brahmins living apart from society and devoted solely to austerities and rituals (see ch. 9). The creators of the å†rama system took this term and concept and extended it to all the legitimate modes of life, especially to celibate asceticism. Evidence does not support the common assumption that the system was created by conservative Brahmins with the intention of resisting the new religious movements and of safeguarding Brahmanical religion by incorporating the renunciatory lifestyle into a scheme that would lessen its impact and reduce or eliminate the conflict between it and the life of the householder. Elements of such a motive may be detected in the later “classical” form of the system I will discuss below. But the original system gives equal weight to all å†ramas and, quite contrary to the normal Brahmanical attitude, gives the candidates total freedom of choice among the competing modes of life. Permitting choice, indeed, placed renunciation and celibacy on an equal footing with household life. The authors of the system in all likelihood came from the anti-ritualistic tradition within Brahmanism, a tradition that finds expression in some of the Upanißads. In light of the socio-economic conditions of northern India during this time with possibly the beginning of the Maurya empire, I am inclined to believe that the å†rama system was an urban invention, or at least reflects the openness of an urban mentality. This is reflected in the very nature of the original å†rama system. It envisaged the å†ramas as voluntary institutions. People are free to choose what they want to be as adults. The same principle was the basis of other voluntary organizations of the time, such as Buddhist and Jain monastic orders. This novel proposal did not go unchallenged. Indeed, some of the earliest sources that record the å†rama system present it as an opponent’s view that is to be rejected. One important argument used against the å†rama system was the theology of the three debts. The obligation to father offspring is clearly stated in the authoritative texts of the Veda. This injunction contradicts the central provision of the å†rama system permitting a man to become a celibate renouncer prior to marriage. By the beginning of the common era, however, the å†rama system underwent drastic changes that culminated in its classical formulation. The å†ramas are now envisaged not as alternate modes of life but as stages an individual goes through as he grows old. The first å†rama in the new scheme is identified with the temporary period of

Renunciation in Hindu Traditions

19

study following Vedic initiation. After completing this stage, a young adult got married and raised a family; this is the second å†rama. When the householder had settled his children, he withdrew into the forest as a hermit. After a period of time in this stage, the man became a renouncer during the final years of his life. Here å†ramas are temporary modes of life corresponding to different age groups, and choice is eliminated. This formulation reasserts the centrality of the householder; the productive years of an adult’s life are spent as an economically productive head of a household. The classical formulation also avoided the problems posed by the theology of debts. In the new system a man only took to renunciation and celibacy after he had fulfilled his obligations to get married, beget offspring, and offer sacrifices. In effect, the classical å†rama system transformed renunciation from a life’s calling into an institution of old age, a form of retirement. Both these formulations of the system contained aspects of artificiality. They answered to the requirements of theological and legal minds demanding order; they did not reflect the usually chaotic reality of social or religious institutions. In the original system the choice of å†ramas was limited to a single moment of a young adult’s life; in reality, as we know from numerous contemporary sources, married people did leave their families and became renouncers. The classical system limited renunciation to old age; in reality people of all ages became renouncers. In time riders were attached to the classical system permitting individuals with extraordinary zeal and detachment to become renouncers early in life. Attempts to blunt the opposition between domesticity and celibate asceticism were at best only partially successful. Proponents of asceticism objected especially to the fact that the grand compromise of the å†rama system relegated asceticism to old age, equating it thereby with retirement. The urgency of personal salvation could not brook such postponement. An example comes from the Life of the Buddha (Buddhacarita) written in the first century CE by A†vaghoßa, a Brahmin who converted to Buddhism and became a Buddhist monk. Although the setting is formally Buddhist, the dialogue between the future Buddha and his father, Suddhodana, captures the controversy both within and outside the Brahmanical mainstream regarding the proper age for becoming an ascetic. When the future Buddha informs his father of his intention to leave the world, Suddhodana tells him: Give up this plan, dear child; the time is not right for you to devote yourself to religion (dharma). For in the first period of life, when the mind is unsteady, the practice of religion, they say, can cause great harm. His senses easily excited by sensual pleasures, a young man is incapable of remaining steadfast when confronted with the hardships of ascetic vows. So his mind recoils from the wilderness, especially because he is unaccustomed to solitude.

20

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

The future Buddha replies: I will not enter the penance grove, O king, if you will be the surety for me in four things. My life shall not be subject to death. Sickness shall not rob me of my health. Old age shall not strike down my youth. And misfortune shall never plunder my wealth. Given that separation is certain in this world, is it not better to separate oneself voluntarily for the sake of religion? Or should I wait for death to separate me forcibly even before I have reached my goal and attained satisfaction. (A†vaghoßa, Buddhacarita, 5.30—38; selections; tr. Johnston)

The rejection of the compromise proposed in the classical å†rama system is presented vividly also in a conversation recorded in the Mahåbhårata (12.169: selections) between a father, the guardian of the old order, and his son, representing the troubled and anguished spirit of the new religious world. This story, appearing as it does in Jain (Uttarådhyayana, 14) and Buddhist (Jåtaka, 509), and later Brahmanical (Markañ∂eya Puråña, ch. 10) texts as well, probably belonged to the generic ascetic folklore before it was incorporated into the Mahåbhårata. This text, just like the story of the Buddha, points to the ascetic rejection of societal attempts to convert asceticism into an institution of old age. To the son’s question regarding how a person should lead a virtuous life, the father replies: First, learn the Vedas, son, by living as a Vedic student. Then you should desire sons to purify your forefathers, establish the sacred fires, and offer sacrifices. Thereafter, you may enter the forest and seek to become an ascetic.

The son retorts: When the world is thus afflicted and surrounded on all sides, when spears rain down, why do you pretend to speak like a wise man? The world is afflicted by death. It is surrounded by old age. These days and nights rain down. Why can’t you understand? When I know that death never rests, how can I wait, when I am caught in a net. This very day do what’s good. Let not this moment pass you by, for surely death may strike you even before your duties are done. Tomorrow’s task today perform. Evening’s work finish before noon, for death does not wait to ask whether your duties are done. For who knows whom death’s legions may seize today. Practice good from your youth, for uncertain is life’s erratic path.

Renunciation in Hindu Traditions

21

The delight one finds in living in a village is truly the house of death, while the wilderness is the dwelling place of the gods —so the Vedas teach. The delight one finds in living in a village is the rope that binds. The virtuous cut it and depart, while evil-doers are unable to cut it. In the self alone and by the self I am born, on the self I stand, and, though childless, in the self alone I shall come into being; I will not be saved by a child of mine.

The text concludes: Of what use is wealth to you, O Brahmin, you who must soon die. Of what use are even wife and relatives. Seek the self that has entered the cave. Where have your father and grandfather gone? (Translation from Winternitz 1923)

1.5. Textual Traditions Renouncer groups both within and outside the Brahmanical tradition developed their own literature, especially texts that dealt with their modes of life and rules of conduct. The Buddhist and Jain textual traditions are well known. Within Brahmanism itself we have evidence of renouncer texts. The fourth-century BCE grammarian Påñini (4.3.110—111), for example, mentions the Bhikßusütras composed by Pårå†arya and Karmandin. The Baudhåyana Dharmasütra (2.11.14; 3.3.16) mentions a treatise on forest hermits. None of these early texts has survived. One of the reasons may have been that discussions of ascetic life became incorporated in the Dharma†åstras within the context of the å†rama system. Some of their sections dealing with renouncers and forest hermits may, indeed, be fragments from early handbooks for these ascetics. The epic Mahåbhårata, likewise, contains similar fragments of ascetic literature (Winternitz 1923). Sections of some of the early Upanißads may reflect renouncer influence or literature. Within the Brahmanical tradition, nevertheless, the only surviving literature dealing with renunciation is embedded within the Dharma†åstras. It was not until the early middle ages that independent compositions dealing with the life of renouncers were composed. These fall into the category called Nibandha, that is, scholarly texts dealing with one or several elements of Dharma with copious quotations from earlier Dharma†åstric treatises. One of the earliest surviving texts of this class is the Yatidharmasamuccaya by Yådava Prakå†a (12th century CE; Olivelle 1995a). Numerous other texts dealing with the rite for becoming a renouncer, his daily life and activities, rules governing his life, and his funeral were composed during medieval times. Most of these have not been edited or printed and only exist in manuscript (Olivelle 1976—77, 1986—87).

22

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

1.6. Sa∫nyåsa: Abandoning Fire and Ritual I have already alluded to an important aspect of renunciation that cuts across sectarian divides: the refusal to use fire and the rejection of ritual activities centered on the sacred fire. This led to another central feature of renunciation: mendicancy. Renouncers begged cooked food and not dry rations; without a fire they were not able to cook. At least in some traditions, likewise, renouncers did not follow the normal social custom of cremating their dead but instead buried them. One of the reasons given for this practice is again their refusal to use fire. Although present also in Buddhist and Jain traditions, the abandoning of the fire became a central feature especially in the Brahmanical understanding of renunciation. The sacred fire and the rituals connected with it are a central feature in the Vedic and Brahmanical religion. The very first word of the very first hymn of the very first text of the Veda, namely the ¥gveda, is “Agni”, Fire—a celebration of the fire god as the priest who conveys oblations to the gods, who is the mouth of the gods in which all oblations are deposited. Abandoning this paramount symbol of Vedic religion, therefore, received special attention in this tradition. Sometime toward the end of the first millennium BCE a new word was coined to express this significant element of Brahmanical renunciation. The word was sa∫nyåsa, which in later times became the most common term in the Brahmanical/Hindu vocabulary for the institution of renunciation (Olivelle 1981; below pp. 127—143). In the early years, however, the term had a more restricted meaning, referring primarily to the abandonment of the fire and ritual during the rite of renunciation. This ritual is often referred to simply as sa∫nyåsa. A medieval definition of renunciation captures the central meaning of this term: “Sa∫nyåsa is the abandonment of daily, occasional, and optional rites found in the Veda and in the texts of tradition, rites known though injunctions, an abandonment carried out by reciting the Praißa formula” (Olivelle 1975; below pp. 63—70). The Praißa formula is the central act in the ritual by which a person becomes a renouncer. It consists of saying three times the words “I have renounced” (sa∫nyasta∫ mayå), first softly, second in a moderate voice, and the third time aloud. The ceremonies leading up to this climax begin the day before with a series of offerings to ancestors and the shaving of the head and beard of the candidate followed by a bath. On the day of renunciation, the candidate offers a final sacrifice in his sacred fire and extinguishes the fire. The abandonment of the fire is interpreted within the tradition as an internalization. The fire is deposited in the renouncer, who carries it within himself in the form of his breaths. There are five types of sacred fires in the Vedic ritual, and there are five types of breaths within the human body. Thus, the two sets dovetailed nicely; after his renunci-

Renunciation in Hindu Traditions

23

ation the five breaths are his five fires, and whenever a renouncer eats he offers an internal sacrifice in the fires of his breaths. The final act of the renunciatory ritual is the taking possession of the emblems of his new state: ochre robe, water pot, begging bowl, pot hanger, and staff. The new renouncer places himself under the tutelage of an experience teacher. The medieval theological tradition of Advaita Vedånta made renunciation central in its understanding of the path to liberation. Advaita was a monistic system of philosophy that looked upon the world of multiplicity as in some way illusory. Taking this illusion that constitutes one’s own individual existence and the external world as reality is ignorance, the cause of our suffering and of our bondage to repeated births and deaths. The first step in the direction of true knowledge is to give up all activities (karma) that are the driving force of the universe, and the most potent of such acts are the ritual acts, which are also called karma. Thus, the giving up of the ritual and the ritual paraphernalia, especially the ritual fire, was considered in Advaita Vedånta as a prerequisite for spiritual progress. 1.7. Renunciation as Penance The Dharma†åstra of Manu (first to third centuries CE) contains a significant verse, which was probably a proverb current during that period: “What needs cleansing is cleansed by using earth and water, a river by its current, a woman defiled in thought by her menstrual flow, and Brahmins by renunciation” (MDh 5.108). Here we find renunciation compared to other methods of purification; renouncing is an act of purification from sin and defilement. Now, the normal method for getting rid of sin in the Hindu tradition is by performing an appropriate penance, which is called pråya†citta. The most common form of penance is fasting. Sometimes penitential acts are carried out as a vow, which is called vrata. Beginning about the 5th century CE and with increasing frequency, the literature on Dharma subsumes renunciation under these two categories of religious acts. The early texts of Dharma generally discuss renunciation and ascetic modes of life under the å†rama system. Later texts, for example the Dharma†åstra of Yåj∞avalkya and medieval legal digests (nibandha), on the other hand, place them within the section dealing with penances (pråya†cittakåñ∂a). According to this understanding, the difference between normal penitential acts and renunciation is that the former are undertaken for a limited, often brief, period of time, whereas the latter is undertaken for life. This connection between penance and renunciation influenced both the religious practices of ordinary people and the behavior of renouncers, a process that I have referred to as the domestication of renunciation (Olivelle 1995a and forthcoming-b; below pp. 27—41). This process is most evident in the handbook on renunciation written

24

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

by Yådava Prakå†a. He integrates ascetic life into the normal ritual life of Brahmanism. In dealing with the daily practices of a renouncer, for example, he concludes that any practice not mentioned in connection with ascetics should be gathered from corresponding practices of householders and Vedic students. Penances for renouncers, likewise, are the same as those for householders, except that they are sometimes more intense. So, for example, the common lunar fast (cåndråyaña), which consists in reducing and increasing by one mouthful the intake of food according to the waning and the waxing of the moon, has a more severe ascetic counterpart called yaticåndråyaña which not only ascetics but also ordinary people can perform. Reading Yådava’s work closely, one gets the distinct impression that the Brahmanical renouncer is a very exalted type of householder rather than a figure who contradicts the value system represented by domestic life. 1.8. Renunciation in Later Religions The leadership provided by renouncers in founding and propagating sects, already evident in the case of Buddhism and Jainism, continued well into the middle ages and modern times. The French social-anthropologist, Louis Dumont, has drawn attention to the close connection between sects and renunciation (Dumont 1960). Many of the founders of both ‡aiva and Vaißñava sects were renouncers, and the organization of sects often accorded renouncers a central position. Most of the medieval Indian sects, however, had devotional theologies and liturgies that asserted the centrality of love and devotion to its particular god as the sole means of attaining liberation. These theological and religious traditions are collectively referred to as “bhakti”. Most bhakti sects accepted the institution of renunciation, often redefining its meaning as withdrawal from worldly concerns so as to focus solely on devotion to god. Nevertheless, the internal logic of bhakti contradicted the elitism inherent in the institution of renunciation. Renouncers were religious virtuosi; and in theologies where mystical quests and ascetic discipline were central, the claim could be made that only renouncers were able to achieve the highest goal of religion, namely liberation. Love, on the other hand, is egalitarian; anyone can love. Indeed, bhakti literature is filled with examples of poor and ignorant men and women who gain divine favor by the intensity of their love. Bhakti contained the potential for radicalism both in religion and in society, even though not all bhakti tradition espoused radical social or religious change. Most were, in fact, rather conservative, acknowledging caste and gender differences within religion. There were some, however, that did draw radical conclusions from the premise that all humans are alike in the eyes of god, and the only thing god requires from humans is complete and unconditional love and sur-

Renunciation in Hindu Traditions

25

render. It was not necessary to go to Benares to see god; he is present in one’s heart. For a person who loves god, his or her front yard is Benares. There is no need to leave home and family and to become a world renouncer in order to love god; a poor farmer can love god more intensely while pursuing his lowly tasks than an arrogant renouncer surrounded by a throng of disciples. The seeds of this challenge was already sown in the Bhagavad Gœtå. Standing in his chariot with K®ßña, the incarnation of Vißñu, in the middle of the two armies ready for battle in the great Bhårata war, Arjuna is struck with remorse at the imminent destruction of kith and kin. There they stood, fathers and sons, uncles and nephews, grandfathers and grandsons, teachers and pupils, ready to kill, each other for the petty comforts of royal power. In disgust and dejection, Arjuna throws down his bow and says, “I will not fight!” K®ßña, god and upholder of social order, uses every argument possible to convince Arjuna that it is his duty as a warrior to fight, to kill, and to be killed. The author of the Gœtå, subtly but effectively transforms Arjuna’s refusal to fight into the broader theological dispute over engagement in and withdrawal from activity, living in society and renouncing it. What is better? To act or not to act? K®ßña’s response amounts to a redefinition of renunciation, which is called sa∫nyåsa in the Gœtå. Renunciation, K®ßña points out, is not simply the running away from society, the refusal to act—for whether we like it or not, our very nature forces us to act. “True” renunciation is not the mere withdrawal from action, which is impossible in any case, but the abandonment of any desire for the fruits, the results, of one’s actions. This true renunciation is an internal attitude and habit; not an external institution with specific rules and emblems. K®ßña calls it “continuous or perpetual renunciation”; unlike institutional renunciation which is carried out on the day that one performs the ritual of renunciation, here one has to continuously fight inner longings and give up desire for fruits every time one engages in any activity. Finally, this inner and true renunciation is not a simple negativity, a giving up of desire; the desire is given up so that one can offer to god one’s actions as an offering, as a token of one’s love. This new understanding of renunciation pervades later bhakti discourse. Most often, it only supplements the more traditional understanding of renunciation. Debates raged between competing traditions in medieval India about renouncers and renunciation— from lofty theological arguments about the nature and the function of renunciation in the path to liberation to what appears to the outside observer as petty squabbles about the dress, food, and emblems of a renouncer, even whether they should carry a single bamboo staff or three bamboos tied together (Olivelle 1986—87; below pp. 231—247). In some of the more radical sects and traditions, however, we find the explicit rejection of renunciation. The Sikh religion that emerged in North India in the 16th century rejecting both Muslim and Hindu

26

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

identities—“There is neither Hindu nor Muslim”—does not have a place for renouncers within its institutional structures. The fifteenthcentury bhakti saint Kabir is at his sarcastic best when he rails against the holier-than-thou ascetics: Go naked if you want, Put on animal skins, What does it matter till you see the inward Ram? If the union yogis seek Came from roaming about in the buff, every deer in the forest would be saved. If shaving your head Spelled spiritual success, heaven would be filled with sheep. And brother, if holding back your seed Earned you a place in paradise, eunuchs would be the first to arrive. (Hawley and Juergensmeyer 1988, 50)

Down the centuries the Hindu traditions have been caught in an internal and unresolved conflict not just between two institutions — married household life and celibate renunciation— but also between the two value systems represented by these two institutions. We have seen many and repeated attempts to bring these two poles of the tradition together, always with limited success. This long debate, with echoes in the ancient Upanißads, epics, Dharma†åstras, and medieval theological tracts, continues in India today, as exemplified in this 1978 speech by the then Vice-President of India, whose view of householder as “true renouncer” goes back to the Bhagavad Gœtå: Who is better—the householder or the sanyasi? Of course, the householder, according to Vice-President B. B. Jatti. While the householder willingly renounces all that he earns to his wife and children for their love and affection, the sanyasi depends on others for his milk and fruits. Parasites, who are a mere burden on society, are sinners. If man has to progress, everybody must work. (Indian Express, May 8, 1978)

2. The Ascetic and the Domestic in Brahmanical Religiosity*

2.1. The theme of this volume is “Criticizing Asceticism” within the respective religious traditions that we are examining. The assumption is that the groups and individuals within those traditions who engage in the critique, as well as modern scholars who investigate such critiques, have a clear idea of what they are criticizing; that is, that they and we know what “asceticism” is. My own paper is entitled “The Ascetic and the Domestic” with the implication that, on the one hand, the two are mutually opposed and, on the other, we have a clear idea of what “domesticity” means. These are presuppositions that I will attempt to problematize here with material drawn from the Indian traditions, with the expectation that some of the issues I raise will be relevant cross-culturally in the study of religion in general and of asceticism in particular. Scholars frequently speak of “domestication of asceticism” or “domestic asceticism”; some of my past works have also focused on these topics (Olivelle 1995a). The implied corollary, although often left unstated, is that asceticism is wild; at least that is the implication in other uses of the qualifier “domestic” as in “domestic animals” that are the opposite of ordinary animals, which are by definition wild. Such a conclusion appears to be supported by ancient Indian texts on ascetic life, texts that often oppose “wilderness” (arañya)—the locus of the ascetic—to “village” (gråma)—the locus of domus, the home and the domestic, and of ordinary people engaged in social, economic, and ritual activities (Olivelle 1990; below pp. 44—62). When we speak of * Originally published in Critics of Asceticism: Historical Accounts and Comparative Perspectives. Ed. Oliver Freiberger. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

28

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

“domestic asceticism”, or to use Weber’s phrase “inner-worldly asceticism”, we assume that people in the world adopt and internalize values, habits, and practices originally specific to “real” ascetic life styles. Uncertainty on this point, however, has crept up on me over the years. This creeping uncertainty has many sources. As I was working many years ago on my book on the å†rama system (Olivelle 1993), it became apparent to me that the conventional wisdom regarding the interaction between asceticism and societal religion in India was at least partially wrong. It was not the Brahmins, the leaders of societal religion, who co-opted, internalized, and thus neutralized, ascetic vocabulary, values, institutions, and symbols, but ascetics and supporters of asceticism who sought acceptance, legitimacy, and patronage by a variety of strategies, including the co-opting of major symbols of Brahmanical religion. Gregory Schopen, in his many focused studies, has demonstrated the same with regard to Buddhist monks. In a recent study (Olivelle, forthcoming-a) I have suggested that the central term dharma was co-opted by the Buddhists from the royal vocabulary as part of the employment of royal symbols and vocabulary by early ascetic leaders and institutions to lay claim to a new and different type of royal authority. The founders of these ascetic groups are called jina, “conqueror”; they are called cakravartin, “roller of the wheels” or universal emperor. The Buddha’s doctrine is compared to a wheel, a metonym for the war chariot and conquest; and his first sermon is the dharmacakrapravartanasütra, “the Sütra that set the wheel of Dharma rolling”. The Buddha’s teaching is †åsana, the counterpart of a royal edit. These are all clearly royal symbols used, deliberately I think, to define new ascetic groups and new religious ideologies. The thesis that I want to propose here is that one such item of the royal lexicon co-opted and redefined within ascetic traditions, and then absorbed back into the royal and public domains, was dharma, clearly the most central and pivotal term and concept in the whole of Indian culture. If my thesis is correct, we can interpret this co-optation of a royal term as one more indicator of the use of royal symbols by ascetic institutions to garner power, prestige, and influence by appealing to a new generation of elite created by state and imperial formations in northern India around the middle of the first millennium before the common era. All this blurs the unambiguous textual distinction between the ascetic and what Louis Dumont called “man-in-the-world”, a distinction at the heart of Dumont’s (1960) seminal work on Indian asceticism. Another source of my uncertainty was articulated by Geoffrey Harpham (1987) in his book The Ascetic Imperative in Culture and Criticism. Reading Harpham’s book —or at least as much of it as I could understand— was an epiphany. Indeed, the “ascetic” that I have been seeking in the wilderness was right here at home. Although Harpham’s historical sense is deeply ethnocentric, as when he says, “In the tight sense asceticism is a product of early

The Ascetic and the Domestic

29

Christian ethics and spirituality” (Harpham 1987, xiii), his main thesis that places the “ascetic” at the most basic level of “culture” is, I think, correct and significant: While the term can plausibly “cover” early Christianity, the concept of asceticism exceeds the ideological limitations of that culture; it may best be considered sub-ideological, common to all culture. In this large sense, asceticism is the “cultural” element in culture; it makes cultures comparable, and is therefore one way of describing the common feature that permits communication or understanding between cultures. As a new computer-literate, I find myself thinking of asceticism as a kind of MS-DOS of culture, a fundamental operating ground on which the particular culture, the word processing program itself, is overlaid. Where there is culture there is asceticism: cultures structure asceticism, each in its own way, but do not impose it. (Harpham 1987, xi)

The computer analogy is apt and brilliant. Harpham’s point is simple and convincing, but not entirely new; Freud said it a long time ago when he spoke of ego and id and the suppression of drives and instincts. And so did Durkheim from a more sociological viewpoint. A culture —and by that I mean what makes for social living— for its very existence, has to impose restrictions on the individual and on his or her individual desires and appetites, and these restrictions are evident both in the sub-conscious mental framework that Freud was interested in and in the most basic social and religious institutions such as marriage, initiatory rites, and ethical and legal codes. So in this sense, according to Harpham’s argument, there is an ascetic in all of us, and asceticism is, at its root, very much domestic, very much social. A similar view has been expressed by Bronkhorst (2001) based on evolutionary biology. Bronkhorst thinks that there is a “shared predisposition” among humans to ascetic behavior, what he calls “ascetic instinct”, parallel to the “language instinct” postulated by several linguists and biologists. When I am in doubt —and being a non-native user of English I am often in doubt— I turn to the dictionary. Webster’s defines “ascetic” as “a person who leads a life of contemplation and rigorous self-denial for religious purposes.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines “ascetic” as “of or pertaining to … the exercise of extremely rigorous self-discipline.” And my Synonym Finder lists “self denial, self-abnegation, selfmortification, self-punishment, self-torment, self-control, selfrestraint” as synonyms of “asceticism”. If we subtract the ethno-centric elements such as “contemplation” and leave aside “religious purpose” for the moment, the two main features of asceticism that emerge from the dictionary usage are: (1) control, discipline, punishment, and even pain inflicted on oneself (mark the repeated use of the reflexive), and (2) that such control is “extreme” and “rigorous”. These two elements illustrates nicely what Harpham describes as the “large” and the “narrow” or as the “loose” and the “tight” senses of

30

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

“asceticism”. As control and discipline inflicted on individual bodies and appetites, asceticism (large and loose) is perhaps the most essential ingredient of culture and social living —it is the Operating System of the cultural computer. As extreme and rigorous (narrow and tight), asceticism points to peculiar cultural manifestations, mostly, though not exclusively, religious in character— the application programs of a specific cultural computer. Expanding the semantic compass of asceticism in this manner, however, has both advantages and disadvantages. One obvious disadvantage is that when a term means everything it means nothing, and we run the risk of making “asceticism” as a category meaningless for scholarly purposes. Commenting on a definition of the term offered by Valantasis: “Asceticism may be defined as performances designed to inaugurate an alternative culture, to enable different social relations, and to create new identity” (Wimbush 1995, 548), David Lorenzen (1996, 976), in his review of the ponderous volume Asceticism edited by Wimbush and Valantasis (1995), recalls what Alice said to Humpty Dumpty: “That’s a great deal to make one word mean.” And, indeed, he is right. I think the instinct of the dictionaries to add the qualifiers “extreme”, “rigorous,” or “severe” is justified; that is how the term ascetic is used by most native speakers of English and probably also of other European languages. On the other hand, however, limiting the usage of the term to such “extremes” has its own pitfalls, especially the tendency to see asceticism as a fanatical fringe and a monstrous outgrowth. Extending the meaning of the term, at least within the context of scholarly discourse, has the benefit of highlighting the continuities between social/cultural life and ascetic practice. And I would argue that it is precisely these continuities —the fact that asceticism practices what culture preaches, that asceticism is founded on the most basic cultural premise and taps deep unconscious motivations— that makes asceticism such a powerful force in culture and religion and its critique ever so strident. 2.2. Before turning to the data from the Indian traditions, let me dwell a bit longer on the very concept of asceticism. The works of Harpham (1987) and Bronkhorst (2001), although they offer many significant insights, do not offer an analysis of the concept of asceticism that is sufficiently nuanced to be useful in the study of asceticism, religion, or culture. Simply reducing asceticism to culture or human nature does not take into account sufficiently the ordinary or the scholarly usages of the term. We need a more nuanced analysis that retains the deeply cultural roots of the ascetic impulse while at the same time making the term useful for studing the diverse forms of religious asceticism that Harpam characterises as its “strict” meaning.

The Ascetic and the Domestic

31

Let me briefly present a classification of the category “asceticism” that may help us think about and explore the concept of asceticism. I present this classification, which is deeply indebted to the theoretical insights of Gananath Obeyesekere (1990), with great misgiving and deep trepidation and purely as a heuristic device. I have no intention of putting the bewildering variety of ascetic impulse and practice into neat little categories. But I hope this classificatory scheme will force us to take asceticism out of its little closet and think about it as a central element of human culture. ROOT ASCETISM (RA) Cultural Imperative; Harpham’s “loose sense” as the Operating System of culture; Unconscious Manifestations. CULTURAL ASCETISM (CA) Cultural manifestations of RA in Ideology/Ethics, Institutions, Art/Literature; Harpham’s “strict sense” as Application Programs; specific to individual cultures. ELITE ASCETISM (EA) Extraordinary ascetic forms adopted by individuals and groups to achieve specific social, religious, and personal goals. ROOT ASCETISM: This is not an observable phenomenon but, like a linguistic root, it is a mere postulate as a cultural imperative, the “cultural” in cultures; a postulate, because it operates in the background, often at the level of the unconscious. The central element of RA, an element present in one form or another at every level of ascetic practice, is “self-control”, the control of individual appetites, drives, and bodily functions. CULTURAL ASCETISM: Every culture develops a set of culturally specific tools by which individual members of the culture can internalize and carry out the controls demanded of them. These tools range from weaning and toilet training of infants and the socializing of children to ethical ideologies and social institutions such as marriage. Returning to the computer analogy, I think of CA as overlaid on RA, as taking RA in new and specific directions. An element of cultural asceticism that I want to highlight is the control of pain that has both an age and a gender component. The hurt that makes a child cry is viewed as abnormal in an adult. And the anguish or alarm that makes a woman cry is viewed as unseemly and unmanly in a man. The warrior ethic of many cultures, including the Indian, requires heroic control of both fear and pain; and at least in India there are great similarities between the ascetic and the warrior ethic. Death in battle and death in the forest, for example, are considered the only deaths suitable for a king or nobleman. I would place within CA other kinds of ascetic behavior expected of individuals by society, such as the initiatory rites involving bodily pain or ascetic regimen.

32

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

ELITE ASCETISM: I am not completely satisfied with this name, but I cannot come up with anything better. It is within this category that I locate the types of human behavior that have traditionally been called “ascetic”. I call it “elite” because it is associated with extraordinary feats of self-control requiring unusual and often life-long effort, and because for the most part it is practiced by select individuals, especially religious virtuosi. Space does not permit me to explore all the different types of elite asceticism both within socially sanctioned institutions and within antisocial protest movements, although frequently the latter type of movements end up themselves becoming social institutions. At least in the ancient Indian context —and this is probably true also of early Christianity— ascetic ideology and practice have some of the elements identified in Valantasis’s definition; they oppose and challenge societal values and ideology. Going to the wilderness, leading homeless and vagabond lives, abandoning economic, sexual, and ritual activities, living lives of poverty and mendicancy —all these are surely symbolic of the ascetic’s rejection of core societal values and institutions. The extraordinary is always a relative term, its meaning depending on what is taken as ordinary in a given time and place. In this sense, elite asceticism is always culturally determined. Thus EA is overlaid upon and determined by CA, just as CA is overlaid upon RA. Nevertheless, I think we can safely speak of some universal features of elite asceticism in relation to the extraordinary level of intensity and persistence in ascetic self-control, features that relate to three major areas of ascetic control: sex, food, and pain. The control of the sexual appetite is a central element even of CA, but EA takes this control to a different level involving either life-long celibacy or abstinence from sex for prolonged periods of time. The control of hunger and pain, however, is an even more central hallmark of EA. 2.3. Turning now to the data provided by Indian religions, in particular the mainstream Brahmanical tradition, let me return to the term “asceticism”. Although it is both inevitable and justifiable for scholarly discourse to produce a specialized vocabulary, nevertheless, especially when we are investigating historical phenomena, it is important to find out what kinds of terms within the indigenous discourse correspond to the specialized terms of the scholarly discourse. In other words, is there an Indian or, given that it is the dominant language of ancient Indian textual production, a Sanskrit term that corresponds to asceticism? The closest one can come is the term tapas.1 Etymologically related to the term for heating and burning, the term denoted the exer1

For a discussion of tapas and its relation to asceticism, see Kaelber 1989.

The Ascetic and the Domestic

33

cise of extreme bodily torture. Tapas was thought to generate not only heat but also power and energy. A person in possession of such ascetic energy was called a tapasvin, “one who possesses tapas.” In ancient Indian cosmology, tapas is connected with the creative activities of gods and with rainfall and fertility. Another such term is †rama, which means fatigue, exertion, and toil.2 As the toil inherent in the sacrifice, †rama is associated in a special way with three primordial and archetypal activities: the gaining of heaven by the gods, the discovery of sacrificial knowledge by the Vedic seers, and the creation of the world. From this term we get the word å†rama, meaning both a place of such toil, that is, a hermitage, and a life style dedicated to such toil, that is, religious vocations; as also the word †ramaña, which becomes a common term for a Buddhist monk. Three concepts are closely associated in Vedic cosmological thought: yaj∞a (sacrifice), tapas (ascetic heat), and †rama (ascetic toil). Ascetic toil of tapas and †rama are associated with cosmogonic activities of the gods: the winning of heaven by the gods (AB 2.13); winning of the nectar of immortality by the gods (‡B 9.5.1.2). “For by toil (†rama),” one texts tells us (‡B 1.6.2.1—3), “the gods indeed gained what they desired to gain, and so did the seers.” The most significant aspect of †rama and tapas, however, emerges in the descriptions of the creative activities of Prajåpati. To create the world Prajåpati toiled (a†råmyat) and tortured or heated himself (tapo ’tapyata). As he was thus worn out (†råntaΔ) and heated (tepånaΔ) he brought forth the creatures, which are his offspring (prajå). This paradigm is repeated constantly in creation stories. In later Indian mythology, the ancient seers are viewed as great ascetics who performed tapas for thousands of years. The power engendered by tapas is the focus of many legends about tapasvins in the epics and the Puråñas. It is this tradition of tapas, †rama, and ritual activity that becomes the religious, mythological, and ideological heritage of the later Brahmanical tradition, the tradition that is often viewed as antagonistic to ascetic ideals and institutions. There is something wrong with this picture. How could a tradition that ascribed creative power to the ascetic toil of tapas become sworn enemies of asceticism? Here let me return to my earlier reflections on the concept of asceticism and its rootedness in the very essence of human culture. Brahmanical ideology articulated in the Vedas ascribes great power, even creative power, to this basic civilizational urge toward self-sacrifice, self-denial, and endurance of pain. Their cultural heroes, the ancient Brahmanical seers, are viewed in later tradition as ascetic virtuosi of great power, more powerful than even the gods. Even gods perform great feats only through the power generated by ascetic toil, as exemplified by ‡iva the ascetic. It is then not asceticism per se that 2

For further details on this term see Olivelle 1993, 9—24; below pp. 145—163.

34

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

the later Brahmanical theologians are opposing. Indeed, for people upholding the value of society and social engagement, it is impossible to oppose asceticism; just as it is not possible for Catholics or Protestants to oppose Christianity. What they oppose in fact is a particular brand or a distinctive interpretation of Christianity. So Catholics oppose Protestants, and vice verse. It is not asceticism that the Brahmanical theologians oppose, it is a particular brand of asceticism, a particular ideology behind specific ascetic institutions that they oppose, because these ideologies and institutions undermine many of the values that are central to the Brahmanical brand of asceticism. The conflict between the Brahmanical mainstream and the various ascetic institutions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, and even ascetic movements within Brahmanism itself, that emerged in India around the middle of the first millennium BCE, therefore, should be viewed not so much as a conflict between the man-in-the-world and the ascetic in the wilderness but as a battle between diametrically opposite ways of understanding and institutionalizing the ascetic impulse. Along with the ideologies of tapas and †rama, Brahmanical mainstream also inherited a value system based on home, family, and ritual activity. The obligation of every adult male to perform Vedic sacrifices is clearly articulated in the Vedic texts. And Vedic rituals required one or three sacred fires. The ceremonial establishment and the continuous maintenance of the sacred fire is another obligation of an adult male. The establishment of the sacred fire and the offering of sacrifices, however, were contingent on a man getting married and establishing a home; only a married man accompanied by his wife was entitled to perform a sacrifice. Only a man accompanied by his wife is the full ritual persona: “A full half of one’s self,” one text tells us, “is one’s wife. As long as one does not obtain a wife, therefore, for so long one is not reborn and remains incomplete. As soon as he obtains a wife, however, he is reborn and becomes complete” (‡B 5.2.1.10). In imitation of Prajåpati’s creative activity, furthermore, another central obligation of an adult Brahmin is to procreate a son to continue the family line so that offerings to the deceased ancestors could be carried out uninterrupted. This duty became a cornerstone of the Brahmanical system of ethics. In opposition to ascetic celibacy, an ancient Vedic text (AB 7.13) harps eloquently on the importance of a son to insure the father’s immortality: A debt he pays in him, And immortality he gains, The father who sees the face Of his son born and alive. Greater than the delights That earth, fire, and water Bring to living beings, Is a father’s delight in his son.

The Ascetic and the Domestic

35

By means of sons have fathers ever Crossed over the mighty darkness; For one is born from oneself, A ferry laden with food. What is the use of dirt and deer skin? What profit in beard and austerity? Seek a son, O Brahmin, He is the world free of blame. Food is breath, clothes protect. Gold is for beauty, cattle for marriage. The wife is a friend, a daughter brings grief. But a son is a light in the highest heaven. The husband enters the wife; Becoming an embryo he enters the mother. Becoming in her a new man again, He is born in the tenth month. A wife is called “wife,” Because in her he is born again. He is productive, she’s productive, For the seed is placed in her. The gods and the seers Brought to her great luster. The gods said to men: “She is your mother again.” “A sonless man has no world.” All the beasts know this. Therefore a son mounts Even his mother and sister. This is the broad and easy path Along which travel men with sons, free from sorrow; Beasts and birds see it; So they copulate even with their mothers.

The second-century CE legal text of Manu (9.137) reaffirms the importance of a son for one’s afterlife: “Through a son a man gains the worlds; through a son’s son he obtains eternal life; but through the son’s grandson he attains the crest of the sun.” An adult Brahmin male—that is, the proper and true Brahmin ascetic —therefore, is one who is the married head of a household, with wife, a ritual fire, and children. The ascetic nature of the life of a Brahmanical householder is underscored by the use of the term å†rama to designate it. In an earlier study I noted: We can draw a few safe conclusions with regard to the original meaning of å†rama. (1) It referred to the place and by extension the life of excep-

36

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

tional Brahmins. (2) The life of these Brahmins centered around the maintenance of and the offering of oblations in the sacred fire. They are also depicted as performing tapas (“austerities”), a concept that we saw was closely associated with †rama. (3) They were married and had children. The presence of a wife . . . is absolutely necessary for the performance of the fire sacrifice. (4) They lived apart from normal society, even though it is not altogether certain whether the å†ramas were always located in the wilderness. (Olivelle, 1993, 23—24)

Although initially referring to extraordinary Brahmin householders, within the system of the å†ramas that envisage four modes of life as “ascetic”, even the life of ordinary householders came to be viewed as an å†rama, an ascetic mode of life. 2.4. Toward the middle of the first millennium BCE in the eastern Gangetic plain there emerged a new form of Elite Asceticism spawning a number of new religious movements, including the Buddhist and the Jain. A defining characteristic of this form of asceticism was its rejection of the very values that formed the cornerstone of Brahmanical ethics: home, marriage, family, fire, and ritual activity. The new ascetics were wandering mendicants, without home, property, family, or ritual fires. They were called anagni, fireless men. They were committed to celibacy, not as a temporary vow such as that prevailing in the Brahmanical institution of studentship, but as a lifelong commitment. The significance of procreating a son was devalued with the emerging notion of personal salvation through individual effort. Brahmanical theologians who had no problem with the kind of ascetic represented by the tapasvin, the forest hermits living community lives and committed to tapas, found the new form of asceticism unacceptable. The key source of conflict was celibacy. A second-century BCE legal document, the Dharmasütra of Baudhåyana (BDh 2.11.27—34)), uses an argument drawn from the doctrine of the three debts to reject the new notion of ascetic living. This novel theology of debt, which emerged probably several centuries before Baudhåyana,3 stipulated that a Brahmin was born with a triple debt: a debt to the seers paid by Vedic study; a debt to gods paid by offering sacrifices; and a debt to the ancestors paid by begetting a son to continue the ancestral offerings. After examining the system of the four å†ramas, Baudhåyana affirms that in reality there is only one å†rama, that of the householder, because in the others one cannot procreate children (Olivelle 1993, 86—91). In the great epic Mahåbhårata there are numerous stories of ascetics who took to the celibate mode of life only 3 This theology was first articulated in the TS 6.3.10.5, later elaborated into four debts in the ‡B 1.7.2.1—6; see Malamoud 1980; Olivelle 1993.

The Ascetic and the Domestic

37

to be excluded from heaven because they did not continue the line of their ancestors. Deceased ancestors lament when one of their descendants becomes a celibate ascetic, because their supply of nourishment will be interrupted. In one graphic description of the epic Mahåbhårata (1.41) the celibate ascetic Jaratkåru sees his ancestors hanging in a cave with their heads down, holding on to a single strand of grass; and he sees a rat gnawing slowly through that string of grass. The rat is time, and Jaratkåru is the last strand. His ancestors call him greedy, for it is the greed for his own personal salvation that has prompted him to take up the celibate mode of ascetic life. The Brahmanical mainstream devised numerous strategies to blunt the force of the new ascetic movements, strategies that parallel the strategies that Berger and Luckmann (1967; Berger 1969) have pointed out in connection with the human construction of worlds. When such a constructed world is no longer taken for granted and faces challenges from newly constructed structures for understanding and ordering the world of human experience, the guardians of the old world will use coercion, apologetics, and co-option to neutralize the threat. The Brahmanical theology of debts itself could be viewed as one such theological defense. The å†rama system, especially its later formulation that relegated celibate asceticism to old age as a form of retirement when ones procreative, ritual, and economic responsibilities are completed, was another theological and institutional way of co-opting this form of asceticism. Manu (6.87—90), the writer of the most famous of the Brahmanical legal treatises, points to the householder as representing not only the highest and best å†rama, that is, the best ascetic, but also as the one occupying the central adult portion of a man’s life: Student, householder, forest hermit, and ascetic: these four distinct å†ramas have their origin in the householder. All of these, when they are undertaken in their proper sequence as spelled out in the sacred texts, lead a Brahmin who acts in the prescribed manner to the highest state. Among all of them, however, according to the dictates of Vedic scripture, the householder is said to be the best, for he supports the other three. As all rivers and rivulets ultimately end up in the ocean, so people of all the å†ramas ultimately end up in the householder.4

Even though Manu accepts the legitimacy of the celibate mode of life, he makes it clear that a Brahmin can adopt it only after he has paid his three debts by marrying and fathering children; otherwise, his ascetic practice will only take him to hell. 4 Most commentators take “end up” as a reference to the fact that persons in the other å†ramas must get their sustenance from the householder, even though this is not strictly true in the case of a forest hermit. The image of the rivers flowing into the ocean, however, evokes another image: that of the rebirth process as described in the BU, 6.2.9—14 and the CU 5.1— 9. After death all beings go through the transformations of smoke, rain, and plants, and finally end up as the semen of a householder before taking birth in the womb of his wife.

38

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Only after he has paid his three debts, should a man set his mind on renunciation; if he devotes himself to renunciation without paying them, he will proceed downward. Only after he has studied the Vedas according to rule, fathered sons in keeping with the Law, and offered sacrifices according to his ability, should a man set his mind on renunciation; if a twice-born seeks renunciation without studying the Vedas, without fathering sons, and without offering sacrifices, he will proceed downward. (MDh 6.35—37)

2.5. When value systems such as that of the Brahmanical mainstream centered on the married householder and that of celibate ascetic communities bent on personal salvation coexist over a period of time, however, they are bound to influence each other. I want here to highlight some Brahmanical adaptations and reinterpretations of celibate and renunciatory values, reinterpretations that can be viewed as new strategies for maintaining the old world (Berger 1969). These adaptations had the added benefit of making household life “just as good” as that of the celibate ascetic. This is the process that I have elsewhere called the domestication of asceticism (Olivelle 1995a, 12—26), the bringing back of some forms of asceticism from the forest and the wilderness into the home. The interpretive strategy consists in defining elements of domestic life as equal to or even surpassing in excellence parallel elements of elite asceticism. In the area of sexual control, for example, faithfulness to one’s wife and engaging in sexual intercourse only to produce children are presented as domestic equivalents of ascetic celibacy. One Upanißad (PU 1.13) goes so far as to claim that engaging in sex only at night is the same as celibacy (brahmacarya). And Manu (3.50) says that when a householder has sex with his wife only during the permitted nights “he becomes a true celibate.” There is an interesting passage in the epic Mahåbhårata (12.11) in which Indra praises the vighaså†in, that is, people who live on remnants. Ascetics in the audience think that Indra is praising them, because they beg their food and thus eat the leftovers of householders. But Indra’s praise is directed at householders who are the “true” eaters of remnants, because they eat what is left over after they have fed their household and offered food to guests, forefathers, and mendicants (Wezler 1978; and Bodewitz’s review 1980). These are strategies of interpretation that define the domestic life of a householder as a superior and more authentic form of asceticism. The old term for ascetic toil, tapas, itself becomes co-opted for various activities of household life. The daily Vedic recitation of a Brahmin is tapas (MDh 2.164). Obedient service to mother, father, and teacher is the highest tapas (MDh 2.229). Influence can also be more substantial, however. One value that emerged from the new elite ascetic movements is that of ahi∫så, not

The Ascetic and the Domestic

39

injuring, harming, or killing living beings. This was at least one factor in the rise of vegetarianism in India.5 Eating meat especially in divine sacrifices and ancestral offerings was the norm within the mainstream of Brahmanism. We see the power of the new ideologyof ahi∫så reflected in the stone edicts of the 3rd century BCE emperor A†oka, who adopted Buddhism. He prohibits killing and boasts that the number of animals killed for the royal kitchen has been reduced and will be still further reduced. The household life, however, involves some form of injury. Manu (3.68—69) is explicit: A householder has five slaughter-houses: fireplace, grindstone, broom, mortar and pestle, and water pot. By his use of them, he is fettered. To expiate successively for each of these, the great seers devised the five great sacrifices to be carried out daily by householders.

The five great sacrifices —Vedic recitation, ancestral offerings, divine offerings, offerings to all creatures, and hospitality to guests— are here interpreted as expiations for the offenses inherent in household living. Manu implies that one reason for ascetics to leave home is precisely the injury caused to living beings. But by offering these expiatory sacrifices the householder becomes equal to a non-injuring ascetic: “If a man never fails to offer these five great sacrifices to the best of his ability, he remains unsullied by the taints of his slaughterhouses in spite of living permanently at home” (MDh 3.71). The influence of the ahi∫så ideology on lay Jain ethics prevented Jain lay people from engaging in agriculture. Even a Brahmanical author such as Manu (10.83—84) draws the same conclusion regarding agriculture, which is prohibited to Brahmins: A Brahmin, or even a Kßatriya, who earns a living by the Vai†ya occupation, should try his best to avoid agriculture, which involves injury to living beings and dependence on others. People think that agriculture is something wholesome. Yet it is an occupation condemned by good people; the plow with an iron tip lacerates the ground as well as creatures living in it.

Eating meat has been a central problem for Brahmanism after it came under the influence of ascetic value systems and adopted a vegetarian diet. I had a good friend and teacher in India. He was both a modern Sanskrit scholar and a Vedic priest. He was also a strict vegetarian. I asked him once how he functioned in his second capacity in which he had not only to eat meat at a Vedic sacrifice but also participate in the killing of a goat. His answer was that he just ate only a very small piece! The contradiction continues. Two millennia earlier Manu had the same problem. On the one hand, he says: 5 For studies on ahi∫så and the somewhat controversial topic of the origin of vegetarianism in India, see Alsdorf 1962; Heesterman 1984; Schmidt H.-P. 1968; Bodewitz 1999.

40

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

The eater is not defiled by eating living beings suitable for eating, even if he eats them day after day; for the creator himself fashioned both the eaters and the living beings suitable for eating. (MDh 5.30)

On the other hand, Manu states: One can never obtain meat without causing injury to living beings, and killing living beings is an impediment to heaven; he should, therefore, abstain from meat. Reflecting on how meat is obtained and on how embodied creatures are tied up and killed, he should quit eating any kind of meat. When a man refrains from eating meat like a goblin, except when the rules prescribe it, he is loved by the world and is not tormented by diseases. (MDh 5.48—50)

Uneasy compromises have to be reached when colliding value systems govern lives. So Manu has to conclude: When a killing is sanctioned by the Veda and well-established in this mobile and immobile creation, it should be regarded definitely as a nonkilling; for it is from the Veda that the Law has shined forth. (MDh 5.44)

So, there are some forms of killing that are really not killing at all! 2.6. Let me then conclude by suggesting that, if the above analysis of asceticism is correct, then the very theme of this volume, “Critics of Asceticism”,6 may need further clarification. It is not asceticism per se that comes under scrutiny and critique, it is the one or the other manifestation of the human ascetic impulse. In a special way, at least within the Indian context, the critique is directed principally at the value system that underlies a particular form of ascetic practice. The critique of particular kinds of asceticism, then, can be viewed as a clash of values, often transformed into conflicts among institutions sustained by those disparate values. Indeed, the particular virulence of attacks on particular forms of asceticism may be due precisely to the fact that the perceived danger lies deeper than merely the few people dedicated to doing strange things. The virulence comes from the perception that one’s whole value system is being undermined. We saw a similar virulence against the hippies and their fellow travelers in the 1960s. Their numbers were no threat; they could easily be ignored. But they presented an imminent threat to the middle-class values of western society. Celibate asceticism of wandering mendicants presented a similar threat to the basic values of the established religious elite of ancient India. 6 The title of the volume in which this essay was first published: see Olivelle forthcoming-b.

The Ascetic and the Domestic

41

But I think there is also a fascination with these extreme and extraordinary forms of ascetic behavior. We see this in stories about wild men living outside the bounds of civilization, whether it is Tarzan or forest hermits. They tap something deep within all humans. Asceticism is a feature of human culture that is both deeper and broader than the extreme and extraordinary practices and institutions with which it is often associated. The ascetic is at the very root of the cultural, and it is this deep association with culture that gives the extraordinary forms of asceticism their extraordinary power over human society and over human imagination. The ascetic, like the basketball or the football player, is doing something that deep down we all would like to do, but do not have the talent or the courage to do. We do the next best thing; we become cheerleaders, internalizing and extolling the value and the heroism of what is done on the playing field or in the penance grove. Couch-bound though we are, deep down there is a bit of the athlete and the ascetic in each of us.

3. Village vs. Wilderness: Ascetic Ideals and the Hindu World*

The central role played by ascetic ideals and life styles in the religious traditions of India is so taken as axiomatic by scholars and practitioners alike that the point bears little repetition. There is, however, another equally important strand of Indian religious history that is older than asceticism and without reference to which asceticism cannot be properly understood. I am referring to the society-centered religion of the Vedas and of the later dharma tradition. This paper examines the conflict between asceticism and the established societal religion and the symbolic universe of classical Hinduism that emerged from their interaction. Louis Dumont (1960) in his seminal work “World Renunciation in Indian Religions”1 drew our attention to the structural conflict existing within the bosom of Hinduism between the ideology of the renouncer and that of the man-in-the-world. One of his major contributions, as Veena Das (1982, 7) rightly observes, was to point out that * Original version published in Monastic Life in the Christian and Hindu Traditions, ed. Austin B. Creel and Vasudha Narayanan, pp. 125—160. Lewiston NY: Edwin Mellen, 1990. Note that I deal here with ideology rather than historical reality of renunciation. Inscriptional and other data show that ascetics and monks lived in and participated in social life, while attemptiing to expand the influence of their respective orders and solicit political and economic patronage. 1 An earlier generation of scholars did not notice this bipolarity of Hinduism and had an exaggerated view of its world negating dimension. Albert Schweitzer (1960, 19), for example, says: “How does the thought of India arrive at world and life negation? When Hellenic thought turns toward world and life negation, it is because in the end it begins to have misgivings about the world and life affirmation which for centuries had seemed a matter of course. It cannot bring this into harmony with knowledge of the world and the tragic events of History. It surrenders itself to world and life denial, because it loses its original energy and reaches a point where it despairs of the Universe. In the thought of India, on the other hand, world and life negation does not originate in a similar experience. It is there from the very beginning, self-originated, born as it were in a cloudless sky.”

44

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

concepts and institutions such as renunciation can be adequately studied not on the basis of their intrinsic properties but on the basis of their relationship to other concepts and institutions within the Hindu world.2 Thanks to structuralism there has been a general shift across many disciplines from internal definitions in terms of intrinsic properties to external definitions in terms of extrinsic relations. The study of world renunciation in India makes this approach imperative, for even the native discourse views it as an antithetical category defined more by its negation of social structures than by any internal structure or property of its own.3 One weakness of the structuralist approach, however, is its lack of historical perspective. Many structuralists tend to ignore the simple fact that social structures exist and function within historical contexts. They are as much subject to change as any other historical reality. Veena Das (1982, 18—56), for example, extrapolates her tripartite structure —king, Brahmin, and renouncer— which is actually a quadrupartite structure with the additional latent category of traderservant representing “all others” of Hindu society, from fifteenth century texts. One cannot call it the structure of Hinduism, as Das does;4 at best it represents the structure of mainstream medieval Hinduism. It tells us nothing directly about the structure of the ancient Hindu society and its relationship to renunciation. Her criticism of Dumont’s theory of binary opposition between the renouncer and the man-in-the-world shows a similar lack of historical perspective (Das 1982, 7). Although a simple binary opposition is inadequate to explain renunciation within the structure of the classical Hindu world, it does not demonstrate that such an opposition did not exist in the early history of renunciation. In fact, both Dumont’s theory of binary opposition and the tripartite structure introduced by Das can be useful tools for analyzing the phenomenon of renunciation and its relationship to and position within the structure of the Hindu world at different periods of its development. In this paper I shall argue, I. that the anti-structural character of renunciation during its early history can be more adequately described as “anti-culture;” and II. that the process of domestication5 that so radically changed the character of renunciation also gave birth to a new Hindu world within which renunciation assumed new structural roles. 2 In this study I use the term “world” as defined in the tradition of the sociology of knowledge. See Berger 1969, 3—51. 3 See Olivelle 1975; below pp. 63—70. 4 “It is clear from the analysis of the myth that it demonstrates the structural order of Hinduism in terms of a tripartite division.” Das 1982, 54. Her lack of historical perspective is evident also in her comparison between the Dharmårañya Puråña written in the 14th or 15th century CE and the Gobila G®hyasütra belonging to a pre-Christian period. 5 My thinking on the point of “domestication” has evolved over time; see Olivelle forthcoming-b; above pp. 27—41.

Village vs. Wilderness

45

3.1. I prefer the term “anti-culture” to “anti-structure” to define Indian asceticism in general, and world renunciation in particular. “Anti-culture” highlights the radical nature of its rejection of even the most basic social constructs, such as housing, agriculture, use of fire, and kinship relations. In terms of origin, culture is a cultivated, artificial state, as opposed to the natural or the primitive. In terms of value, culture evokes sentiments of superiority, goodness, and beauty. In terms of human conduct and social expectations, culture defines the ideal and often the normative. The cultured person —the Sanskrit †iß™a— stands in relation to the uncultured barbarian as the cultivated to the natural, as good to evil, as human to beast. “Culture” as used in this study encompasses all the structures and constructs of the social, political, economic, technological, religious, aesthetic, and intellectual dimensions of humans and society. It points in a special way to the symbolic universe that brings meaning to the physical and social world, and to the life and death of individuals.6 “Anti-cultural,” therefore, says “anti-structure” and much more. I call asceticism “anti-culture” rather than “counterculture,” because renunciation, which became the most common form of Indian asceticism, did not intend to replace the established culture with a different cultural system, or even to offer an alternative. It was not a movement of social reform. This point is reaffirmed in the classical Brahmanical definitions of renunciation according to which renunciation is a totally negative state, defined by what it abandons rather than by what it practices, by what it is not rather than by what it is (Olivelle 1975). Indeed, the “anti-culture” of renunciation can only exist in opposition to, and, therefore, dependent on the culture of society. On the other hand, the ascetic life style of hermits in the woods, as we shall see, may well be conceived of as a counterculture. An anti-structure or an anti-culture has no meaning conceptually and cannot exist historically except in relation to the structure or culture that it negates. This relationship, however, exists within the boundaries of time and space. An anti-culture negates a particular culture located in a specific geographical and historical context. It is, therefore, important to recall here, however briefly, the significant features of the culture that existed in north-east India toward the end of the Vedic period and the dawn of world renunciation, that is around the sixth century BCE. Long before this period the nomadic life-style of the early Åryan settlers had given way to settled village communities, and agriculture had replaced cattle rearing as the main economic activity. The iron 6 See Berger and Luckmann 1967, 92—128. On the “world” as culture, see Berger 1969, 6—7.

46

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

age that began in India around the ninth century BCE resulted in the extensive use of the plough and in the large-scale colonization and cultivation of the Gangetic valley. The effects of this were felt not only in the economic field; they ushered radical changes in the social and political framework of the Vedic society. The early village-based tribal organization gave way to relatively large kingdoms under the absolute authority of monarchs. Centralized political authorities made travel relatively safe and easy, facilitating commerce and creating a rich and powerful merchant class. The economy became more complex and integrated, and there was greater contact and communication across a relatively large area of North India. Urban centers grew especially around the capitals of kingdoms. For the first time in India since the Indus Valley Civilization cities became important centers of culture. The main features of the Vedic religion, that reflected more the concerns of a village culture, remained relatively unchanged in the new urban setting. These features defined the Vedic homo religiosus legitimizing thereby social structures, roles, and obligations, and elevating them to the level of transcendent truth (dharma). Society was the central religious institution. The Vedic society was highly structured and consisted of many groups —varña (class), jåti (caste)— in stable and complex relationship with each other. A person belonged to this institution by his birth into one of these groups. He was socially defined and assumed religious significance not as an individual but as a member of his group. As Dumont (1960, 42) puts it graphically, in the Vedic world “the individual is not;” he lacks any conceptual reality. In ritual, social, political, economic, and even moral activity the group defined the parameters of an individual’s life.7 Sacrifice, according to Vedic cosmology, is the creative power that began the cosmic process; it is the power that continually maintains the cosmic order.8 To offer sacrifice, therefore, is the main obligation of an individual. The full participation in society and ritual, however, is restricted to the married householder; only he in the company of his wife constitutes the full religious persona and is entitled to perform sacrifices.9 Sexual activity and the procreation of children are similarly sacred acts and duties. Offering sacrifice and begetting offspring are considered the gateways to immortali7 My thinking on this point has also evolved over time. I think Dumont’s position as articulated cannot be sustained from a historical standpoint. The emphasis on the roles of an individual within social structures, however, is evident within the Vedic and the later Dharma†åstric traditions. 8 See Levi 1898; Keith 1925, 257—78, 454—67; Basu 1969, 137—71; Biardeau and Malamoud 1976; Olivelle 1993. 9 “A man who has no wife is not entitled to sacrifice.” ‡B 5.1.6.10. Husband, wife, and child constitute the fullness of a person. “He alone is a perfect man who consists of his wife, himself, and his offspring.” MDh 9.45. See also TS 6.1.8.5; ‡B 5.2.10; 8.7.2.3; AÅ 1.2.5.

Village vs. Wilderness

47

ty.10 These obligations were given a theological basis in the doctrine of the three debts:11 at birth a man is born with debts to gods, seers, and forefathers. He is freed from them when he sacrifices, studies the sacred scriptures, and begets offspring. The Vedic homo religiosus, therefore, is a married householder. The Vedic religion revolves around him. This religion centered on social and ritual obligations was expressed in Sanskrit verse and prose compositions that came to be known collectively as the Veda. This language, this literature, this social, economic, and religious complex constituted the established culture, the Vedic world, in North India toward the middle of the first millennium BCE. A passage recurring in several Upanißads12 employs the images of the village and the wilderness to contrast the practices and goals of this established religion with those of asceticism: Now, the people who know this, and the people here in the wilderness who venerate thus: “Austerity is faith” —they pass into the flame, from the flame into the day, from the day into the fortnight of the waxing moon, from the fortnight of the waxing moon into the six months when the sun moves north, from these months into the year, from the year into the sun, from the sun into the moon, and from the moon into lightning. Then a person who is not human—he leads them to brahman. This is the path leading to the gods. The people here in villages, on the other hand, who venerate thus: “Giftgiving is offerings to gods and to priests” —they pass into the smoke, from the smoke into the night, from the night into the fortnight of the waning moon, and from the fortnight of the waning moon into the six months when the sun moves south. These do not reach the year but from these months pass into the world of the fathers, and from the world of the fathers into space, and from space into the moon. This is King Soma, the food of the gods, and the gods eat it. They remain there as long as there is a residue, and then they return by the same path they went —first to space, and from space to the wind. After the wind has formed, it turns into smoke; after the smoke has formed, it turns into a thundercloud; after the thundercloud has formed, it turns into a rain-cloud; and after a rain-cloud has formed, it rains down. On earth they spring up as rice and 10 “In thy offspring thou art born again; that, O mortal, is thy immortality.” TB 1.5.5.6. See also ¥V 5.4.10.; AB 7.13.1—10; VaDh 17.1—5; MDh 9.107, 137; YDh 1.78; ViDh 15.45—46; MBh 1.111.11; 2.38.25—27. The sexual act is compared to a sacrifice in which the woman’s “lap is the sacrificial altar; her hair, the sacrificial grass; her skin the Soma-press. The two labia of the vulva are the fire in the middle.” BU 6.4.3. Sexual intercourse is equal to a Soma sacrifice: BU 6.4.3. 11 “A Brahmin, at his very birth, is born with a triple debt —of studentship to the seers, of sacrifice to the gods, of offspring to the fathers. He is, indeed, free from debt, who has a son, is a sacrificer, and who has lived as a student.” TS 6.3.10.5. For another version see ‡B 1.7.2.1—6. See also MBh 1.111.12—15; 1.220.9—14. For an exhaustive study, see Malamoud 1980, 39—62; Olivelle 1993. 12 See BU 6.2.15—16; KßU 1.1—7; MuñU 1.2.9—11; PU 1.9—10. See Sprockhoff 1981, 51 and note 86 for additional secondary literature. See also Sprockhoff 1984, 1991.

48

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

barley, plants and trees, sesame and beans, from which it is extremely difficult to get out. When someone eats that food and deposits the semen, from him one comes into being again. (CU 5.10.1—5)

Two significant points are made in this passage. First, the two religious paths, Vedic ritualism and asceticism, are symbolized by the places —village and wilderness— in which they are practiced. Village is the human habitat, the locus of Vedic culture, a place of purity and safety. Wilderness is the antithesis of village.13 It is a place of danger, impurity, and desolation, the habitat of wild beasts, barbarians, and evil spirits. It is where people dispose of their dead. Asceticism inverts the accepted values of these symbols. We witness here the emergence of a new world-view, a new understanding of humans and cosmos that rejected the basic assumptions of the Vedic world. This rejection is expressed in the second point: the Vedic way of the village leads to repeated death and birth, whereas the ascetic way of the wilderness leads to the gods, to the freedom of immortality. Wilderness is freedom; village is bondage. This is the basic metaphor of Indian asceticism. The above passage is one of the earliest references to the concepts of sa∫såra and mokßa that form the cornerstone of classical Hindu theology. Whatever their origin, it is clear that at a very early stage the ascetic traditions appropriated them as the cardinal points of their understanding of humans, the world, and religious practice. Our passage sees the practices of the Vedic culture as inextricably bound to the sa∫såric process, and the ascetic practices as the gateway to mokßa. Culture and village represent sa∫såra; anti-culture and wilderness symbolize mokßa. At the ideological level, therefore, Dumont’s binary opposition between renouncer and man-in-the-world translates into the opposition between sa∫såra and mokßa. A deeper opposition cannot be found within the framework of Hindu thought. As this passage demonstrates, in India the ideological is inextricably bound to the practical; where one lives14 and how one makes a living15 are inseparable from the aim of one’s life. Ascetic life style and livelihood cannot be separated from the ascetic goal. It is at the level of life style, then, that the anti-cultural dimension of asceticism is most evident. Asceticism in India found expression in two distinct but interrelated forms: the sedentary hermit and the itinerant mendicant. The former is celebrated in myth and epic, but became obsolete at least by 13

For a full discussion, see Sprockhoff 1981. Manu‘s (MDh 2.17—24) discussion of Brahmåvarta, Madhyade†a, and Åryåvarta is a clear example of the geographical definition of virtue and proper conduct. For my more recent work on this, see Olivelle 2006a. 15 Means of livelihood is the criterion for most classifications of both ascetics and householders: MBh 12.17.10; 12.235.2—3, 22; 12.236.8—12; BDh 3.1.1—7; 3.2.1—19; 3.3.1—14; VkhDh 1.5.7—8. See Olivelle 1991; below pp. 71—89. 14

Village vs. Wilderness

49

the early centuries of the common era. The latter has continued to persist until today in some form or other as the central institution of holiness in nearly all Indian religous traditions. The hermit’s anti-culture is a simple return to nature both in habitat and life style, a theme familiar in many traditions from the desert fathers to Taoists. The degree of his return, however, is uncommon. The hermit gives up totally all products of culture, except the use of fire. He is said to imitate the life style of wild animals. He leaves the village or town, the locus and the ultimate product of culture, and lives in the forest or the wilderness, the place where nature reigns. His permanent physical separation from culture is expressed in the oft repeated injunction: “He shall not step on ploughed land.”16 In this symbolic geography, ploughed land stands between the village and the wilderness; it surrounds the village and separates it from the wilderness both geographically and symbolically. The plough symbolizes man’s dominance over and his manipulation of nature. The hermit eats uncultivated food —fruits, roots, and herbs growing in the wild.17 The cultivator becomes a food gatherer. He wears bark and skin— garments not produced by technology. Like animals and unlike cultured men, he lets his hair and nails grow. His matted hair is not a coiffure, though it is depicted as such in art and legend. Hair uncut, unkempt, and unwashed soon becomes matted. Normative texts also depict him as bathing constantly,18 but it is more likely that the hermit never washed himself; he is dirty, loathsome, and foul smelling. The greater the dirt, the better the ascetic. There is the fascinating story about the famous ascetic Vyåsa, who was called upon to father children for his dead brother, Vicitravœrya. While accepting this role, Vyåsa remarks that his brother’s wife, Ambikå, should “bear with my ugliness. If she bears with my smell, my looks, my garb, and my body, Kau†alyå shall straightway conceive a superior child” (MBh 1.99.42—43). His odor and sight are so overwhelming, however, that Ambikå is forced to close her eyes when he comes to her bed, resulting in the blindness of her son, Dh®taråß™ra.19 Ascetics in general and forest hermits in particular are said to imitate the life style of wild beasts. An interesting verse cited in the BDh (3.2.19) extolls this life style. Moving about with wild beasts, And dwelling with them alone, GDh 3.32; VaDh 9.3; BDh 2.6.11.15. MDh 6.3.16; GDh 3.28; ÅpDh 2.9.22.1; VaDh 9.4; BDh 2.6.11.15. 18 MDh 6.6; BDh 2.6.11.15; VaDh 9.9; ÅpDh 2.9.22.13. It is significant that the rule on bathing is missing in the GDh. 19 See MBh 1.99—100. See also MBh 1.110.8; 1.201.17; 3.119.19; 3.123.7; 5.187.18—20; 12.9.13; 12.253.3; 15.33.17; Råm 3.6.4; MN 1.181. The Buddha also is said to have let dirt gather on his body for so long that it peeled off on its own (MN 1.78). 16 17

50

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Living a life just like theirs — Clearly that’s the way to heaven.

Indian ascetic literature makes a close association between living in the wilderness and living like animals. Ascetics imitate the life styles of deer, cows, pigeons, fish, pythons, and dogs.20 Although the sources are ambiguous, it is very likely that celibacy, vegetarianism, and anti-ritualism were not central themes in the original hermit ideology. A return to nature and imitation of wild beasts do not require the first two. The third never became a part of the hermit life style, dedicated as it was to askesis (tapas) with its roots in the ritual. Thus, although he follows nature’s way, the hermit paradoxically continues to use fire, a prime symbol of culture, both within and outside the ritual. Indian cosmological myths often depict the earliest humans as totally unconstrained either by social structures and laws or by the need to engage in economic activities. The paradisiacal state at the beginning was one of nature and not of culture. Culture is the result of human greed and depravity.21 This theme is obvious in the later nostalgic depictions of hermit communities in the Indian epics and belles-lettres. Though the historicity of these depictions is extremely doubtful, they express in myth the perception that the eremitical life in its return to nature constitutes not so much an anti-culture as a counterculture. The call of the wild is a return to the beginning and an alternative to life in the village; village-culture is supplanted by a “forest-culture.” The forest-culture, however, was so separated from the village and the alternative it represented more mythical than sociological, that it did not develope the anti-structural opposition to society the way renunciation did.22 World renunciation rejects the constructs of culture in a less obvious but a more fundamental way. Motifs of the return to nature and the imitation of wild animals are not wanting in renunciatory literature, but they play a secondary role. Whereas the hermit leaves society and lives independent of it, the renouncer rejects society but lives in absolute dependence on it. The renouncer’s life exemplifies a more decisive and a far deeper rejection of culture and society than a mere return to nature. A renouncer does not create a parallel and 20 See MBh 5.118.6—11; 1.109; MN I.79; Jåtaka I.390; A†vagoßa, Buddhacarita, 6.59—62. See also my paper “Beast and Ascetic“ below pp. 91—100. 21 See Liõga Puråña, 1.39; Vißñu Puråña, 1.6; Agga∞∞a Sutta of the DN. See also Olivelle 1991; below pp. 71—89. 22 The Dharma†åstras and epics relate the hermit’s life to old age and retirement. Several scholars have seen this institution as an altered form of the old Indo-European custom of killing or exiling old people. See Haberlandt 1885, 10—12; Sprockhoff 1981. The exile theme plays an important role in the hermit legends. Political exiles, such as Råma and the Påñ∂ava brothers, were expected to adopt a hermit’s life style. The connection with olde age, as we shall see, is later carried over to renunciation. On the economic basis of Indian asceticism, see Skurzak 1948 and 1967—68.

Village vs. Wilderness

51

independent culture. Renunciation, precisely because it is the antithesis of culture, is totally dependent on it both as a concept and as an institution. As renouncers depend on the generosity of society for their sustenance, so renunciation depends on culture for its significance. Without culture and society renunciation could not have arisen, and without their continual presence renunciation will lack any meaning. In short if all people are renouncers, they would cease to be renouncers; it is possible, on the other hand, to imagine a situation where all humans are hermits. The renunciatory life style negates cultural norms in almost all areas of human life and activity: social organization and belonging, economic, sexual, and religious activity, etiquette and morality, sex roles, and even language. The renouncer cuts all social and kinship ties and leaves the caste and family into which he was born. His break with the social structure is so complete that both legally and ritually renunciation is considered by society and religion as the death of the renouncer.23 The paradox is that though dead he continues to live and to have relations with society. This puts him in a rather ambiguous position with regard to the system of purity-impurity which is at the very root of the Indian social structure and intercourse. Many sources regard him as beyond the pure-impure dualism (VkhDh 1.9). The temptation, however, within a mental framework so accustomed to considering everything within the context of that dualism is to view him either as the zenith of purity or as the nadir of impurity. Having left his group a renouncer is left out of the Law (dharma) that regulates human life. Dumont (1960, 42), as we have seen, has drawn our attention to the complete absence of the individual in the Brahmanical conception of society. The renouncer asserts his individuality by leaving society. The renouncer’s very departure asserts the freedom of the individual with regard to human conduct, a freedom denied by the very definition of dharma in Bråmañical theology, whose hermeneutical tradition is devoted to the elimination of conflict between injunctions precisely because it would open the door to choice (Olivelle 1993). Within the community of renouncers many social taboos are broken. People between whom even the minimum of social intercourse was forbidden when they were in society now live and eat together. To the Brahmanical mind, which sees the breakdown of caste distinctions as the ultimate evil of a depraved age, renunciation must have seemed the work of the devil himself.24 23 On the legal effects of renunciation, including the annullment of marriage and other contracts, see Olivelle 1984, 141—146; below, pp. 271—291. 24 Baudhåyana, who views the householder’s life as obligatory on all, says that a prudent man should pay no heed to the å†rama division because it was created by a demon (asura) named Kapila: BDh 2.6.11.28.

52

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Leaving the family implies a celibate life. This is possibly the most misunderstood aspect of renunciation within the later Hindu tradition and in modern scholarship, both victims of puritanical morality. It is clear that many ascetic traditions understood celibacy as the curbing of sensual passion. Within the context of the Brahmanical world and morality, however, the most significant aspect of celibacy is its rejection of marriage and procreation. The completeness of the human individual does not require a wife; a son does not insure happiness after death or immortality. The celibate ascetic confronted by his lamenting ancestors whose line he has cut off is a recurrent theme in Indian literature (see, for example, MBh 1.41—42; 9.49). The renouncer is the antithesis of the married householder not merely as the exemplar of sexual continence but as the symbol of a new worldview in which marriage and children lack ultimate meaning.25 An ancient epithet for a renouncer is anagni —“the fireless man.”26 Indian renouncers may well be the only known group of civilized people who gave up the use of fire. Only humans use fire, and it is symbolic of their cultural domination of nature. The cooked stands against the raw as culture against nature. In ancient India, moreover, fire was the symbol of the Vedic religion and culture. Vedic people were forbidden to inhabit a land not purified by fire (‡B 1.4.1.14—19). It played a central role in all rituals, and the taking possession of a sacred fire signaled the assumption of adult responsibilities as a married householder. The renouncer’s abandonment of fire is perhaps the most telling symbol of his anti-culture. Without fire he performs no rites or sacrifices, thus denying an ultimate value to the central religious act of the Vedic culture.27 The sacrifice, which in several Vedic myths is the source of creation, is now considered the primary instrument of the sa∫såric process. The basic meaning of the term karma in all Brahmanical literature is sacrifice (yaj∞a), a fact that many modern scholars have ignored or are ignorant of. The primary meaning of the term sa∫nyåsa, the most common word for renunciation in the Hindu vocabulary, is the abandonment of rites.28 Classical definitions of renunciation, furthermore, consider this abandonment as its defining characteristic.29 Hindu renunciation expressed the abandonment of ritual activity by discard25 “...the ancient (sages) did not wish for offspring: ‘What shall we do with offspring, we who have attained the Self, this world.’” BU 4.4.22. See also BU 3.5.1; 1.4.17; 3.9.28.4—5. 26 ÅpDh 2.9.21.10; MDh 6.43; BDh 2.10.18.22. 27 Even the Upanißads reveal this anti-ritualism: see, for example, MuñU 1.2.7—10; BU 1.4.10; 1.4.17. The ‡B (1.2.5.24) already notices such opinions: “Then unbelief took hold of men. They said; ‘Those who sacrifice become more sinful and those who sacrifice not become righteous.’” 28 See Olivelle 1981; below, pp. 127—143. 29 “Renunciation is the abandonment of rites known through injunctions —the †rauta and smårta, the permanent, occasional, and optional —after reciting the praißa ritual formula.” YPra (Olivelle 1976—77), 1:2. See also Olivelle 1975; below pp. 63—70.

Village vs. Wilderness

53

ing the sacrificial cord, the central symbol of the twice-born classes and of the sacrifice through which they are reborn. Lacking fire, a dead renouncer is buried. In a culture where cremation is the norm and this oblation of one’s body in the sacred fire is considered the final purificatory sacrifice and the last rite of passage, and where burial is restricted to infants and sinners, the burial of a renouncer signals his complete exclusion from the established religious framework. Even the rite of union with the ancestors —sapiñ∂œkaraña— is not performed for him.30 As he is excluded from the human community on earth, so he is excluded from the rites that would lead him to the community of ancestors after death. A renouncer does not participate in any economic activity, not even in food gathering. He does not produce or store food, and begs his food daily. He is forbidden to have any possessions, and Hindu law states that a renouncer loses all rights to his former property.31 He depends for his very sustenance on the generosity of the society and culture that he has renounced. The advance of civilization is characterized by economies that are increasingly more complex in terms of production, specialization, storage, and distribution, especially of food. This very advance in India and the surplus that it created made the mendicant life style possible. That life style in its turn denied the value of such economic endeavors, endeavors that in ancient India were inseparable from religion and were a part of dharma.32 A renouncer stores no food; he lives from day to day. The length of storage defines the various ascetic classes, and in later times even householders are classified in terms of food storage.33 The best do not store at all. A renouncer, moreover, is expected to beg after the people have finished their meals; he eats the left overs.34 In the Brahmanical tradition such food is considered impure. He is thus a scavenger, and the sources refer to some renouncers eating their food straight off the ground with their mouths in imitation of dogs and cows.35 The renouncer, like the hermit, lives outside the village in the wilderness. His separation from the village, however, is not total. He returns to the village to beg for food. Although he is associated with the wilderness, his main difference from the villager is that he is a homeless wanderer. The distinctive feature of village or city culture is 30 This is later interpreted to mean that a renouncer becomes a forefather (pit®) immediately after his death. He, therefore, does not need the sapiñ∂œkaraña. See Olivelle 1976—77: 71.15—16. 31 See Olivelle 1984, 142—44; below pp. 285—286. 32 See MDh 10.74—131; ÅpDh 2.10.4—7; GDh 10.1—7; VaDh 2.13—19; BDh 1.18.1—4; ViDh 2.1—7; YDh 1.118—19. 33 See above note 15. 34 See note 50 below. 35 See MBh 5.97.14; 1.86.17; NpvU 177.1—2; 184.13; 204.4; BDh 3.3.12; Matsya Puråña, 40.17. On the imitation of a python (ajagarav®tti), see MBh 12.172.19—34. See also my paper “Beast and Ascetic”; below pp. 91—100.

54

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

that its participants belong to a place. They identify themselves as belonging to a country (or kingdom), a region, a town or village, and a home. To them the vagabond and the nomad typify the barbarian. When the renouncer returns to the pre-cultural nomadic state he breaks one of the strongest bonds of culture. While the hermit retires to the wilderness and establishes a domicile parallel to the village, the renouncer roams restlessly through wilderness and village, a constant challenge to the virtue of stability. The dress of renouncers was not uniform, but it symbolized their removal from society. The most extreme form was not to have a dress at all, to go naked. For humans a dress may often be a physical necessity, but culture transforms it into a uniform indicative of social position and prestige. Nakedness is both a return to nature, to the way one was dressed at birth —jåtarüpadhara is a common epithet36— and to the way animals live, as well as a negation of social custom and etiquette. When not naked renouncers used garments discarded by others. The color is kåßåya, generally translated as “ochre” or “orange.” It is more likely that at least initially the term meant “dirty colored,” especially when we hear that some renouncers were forbidden to wash the rags they picked up before wearing them.37 In any case, it means “nonwhite,” white being the normal color worn by people in society.38 A renouncer is advised to behave like a båla, which means both child and fool, an unmatta, which means both madman and drunkard, and a pi†åca or goblin.39 This oft-repeated description indicates the renouncer’s negation of three important areas of cultured behavior: rationality, morality, and purity. He behaves irrationally, violates the norms of morality, and disregards the rules of purity. Renouncers are often depicted as courting dishonor by behaving outrageously in public.40 Many renouncer sects, such as Buddhism and Jainism, gave up both the sacred book —the Veda— and the sacred language —Sanskrit. They used for religious purposes the uncultured language of the ordinary people. It is likely, moreover, that the mainstream renouncer tradition likewise gave up the Veda in its older definition as the hymns and the ritual texts.41 JåbU 70.3; NpvU 153.5; 155.3; 168.11. See also Sprockhoff 1976, 207, n. 33. ÅpDh 2.9.21.11; Mahåvagga of the Vinaya Pi™aka, I.20.1. See the prohibition against washing the clothes in the Jain Åcåråõga Sütra, 2.5.2.1. 38 The BDh (2.10.17.44) says: “From now on he should not wear white clothes.” At Mahåvagga 8.11.2 some monks are criticized for wearing robes the color of ivory. 39 See JåbU 69.6; VaDh 10.19. 40 See Lorenzen 1972, 185—88; Ingalls 1962. 41 “Two types of knowledge a man should learn —those who know brahman tell us— the higher and the lower. The lower of the two consists of the ¥gveda, the Yajurveda, the Såmaveda, the Atharvaveda, phonetics, the ritual science, grammar, etymology, metrics, and astronomy; whereas the higher is that by which one grasps the imperishable.” MuñU 1.1.4—5. The term vedasa∫nyåsin also seems to indicate this: see MDh 6.86; BDh 2.10.18.24; Kürma Puråña, 1.2.82. 36

37

Village vs. Wilderness

55

One other significant anti-structural aspect of early renunciation was the admission of women into ascetic orders. If Brahmanism had no place for individuals, it certainly had no place for individual women. That women should always be under male authority, and that women became religious actors only through male, generally husband’s, mediation were axiomatic.42 Renunciation of women was one of the most visible and certainly the most bitter symbol of the antistructural nature of this institution. It is revealing that this is the only significant aspect of renunciation explicitly rejected in the process of its domestication by Bråhmañism. At its inception renunciation did not enter into the structural framework of society to form complex relationships with other elements of that structure. Renunciation negated that very structure and defined itself over against the totality of that structure. It did not form an element of the Vedic world; it challenged the validity of that world. This challenge was made possible by the very socio-economic changes that took place around the sixth century BCE, principally the emergence of cities and kingdoms and the creation of a surplus economy and relative affluence along the Gangetic valley. 43 Poverty becomes a virtue only in an affluent society and not in a subsistence economy. The value of social structures and roles is more easily challenged and “experimental life styles” are tolerated more in urban centers than in villages. Cities breed individualism and enterprise, qualities evident in the noble and the merchant classes of the time. The king, moreover, was the individual par excellence; he did not belong to a group. The socio-economic conditions of this region and this period, therefore, made the denial of the social, economic, and religious structures within world renunciation possible both conceptually and institutionally. 3.2. With reference to alternative definitions of reality in marginal groups and the resultant conflict of worlds, Berger and Luckmann (1967, 106—07) comment: The group that has objectivated this deviant reality becomes the carrier of an alternative definition of reality. It is hardly necessary to belabor the point that such heretical groups posit not only a theoretical threat to the symbolic universe, but a practical one to the institutional order legitimated by the symbolic universe in question. 42 “For women, there is no independent sacrifice, vow or fast.” MDh 5.155. “Even in their own homes, a female—whether she is a child, a young woman, or an old lady—should never carry out any task independently. As a child, she must remain under her father’s control; as a young woman, under her husband’s; and when her husband is dead, under her sons’. She must never seek to live independently.” MDh 5.147—48. 43 For a discussion of this point, see Ling 1976, 43—102; Olivelle 1993, 55—58.

56

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

This observation is valid also with regard to the ascetic world of ancient India. The symbolic universe of asceticism posed an even greater threat to the established world because asceticism was not restricted to a particular heretical group or sect. The old Dharmasütras reveal the first reaction of Brahmins, the experts of the old order: rejection of the new world coupled with theoretical legitimations of the old.44 It is, however, the second stage that represents the more interesting phase of this conflict of two worlds. It involves the more ambitious attempt to account for all deviant definitions of reality in terms of concepts belonging to one’s own universe.... The deviant conceptions are not merely assigned a negative status, they are grappled with theoretically in detail. The final goal of this procedure is to incorporate the deviant conceptions within one’s own universe, and thereby to liquidate them ultimately. (Berger and Luckmann 1967, 115)

In general, however, this process of incorporation never liquidates the challenge totally and leaves the established world substantially altered. According to Berger this process is initiated by the custodians of the established world. An earlier generation of scholars similarly depicted the absorption of renunciation as an attempt by Brahmanism to include and thereby to control an institution that it was powerless to oppose. That is inaccurate; it is an oversimplification of a complex historical process. The initiative often came from the renouncers themselves eager to gain social respectability and acceptance and to obtain political patronage. The Buddha, for example, is often said to have formulated new and more moderate rules in response to social criticism. The ascetic communities, moreover, were unisex. Celibacy makes it impossible for them to propagate, and, therefore, it was imperative for them to maintain ties to society from which they could recruit new members. For our purposes, however, the authors are less important than the dynamics of the process itself. The structure of the Hindu world has proven to be flexible and elastic; in fact it has lasted the test of time precisely because of its inherent elasticity which has enabled it to accommodate and often to integrate new and even foreign elements without revolutionary spasms. It is this feature that Dumont identifies as “aggregation” in describing the historical development of Hinduism. Often, however, as in the case of renunciation, this development amounted to more than mere aggregation; at a variety of levels, both conceptual and institutional, renunciation was structurally integrated into the Hindu world. With regard to the effect this structural integration had on renunciation, I call it “domestication.” The Brahmanical 44

See Olivelle 1993.

Village vs. Wilderness

57

world restructured by the incorporation of renunciation I call “the classical Hindu world.” The incorporation of renunciation took place both at the structural-institutional level and at the level of ideas, values and practices. The most significant structural innovation was the creation of the å†rama system. Its pre-classical and probably the original formulation45 posits four religious life styles as legitimate or dharmic options for adult males: student (brahmacårin), householder (g®hastha), hermit (vånaprastha), and renouncer (parivråjaka). The å†ramas are presented as a fourfold division of dharma, paralleling its older division in terms of varña. Like the varñas, å†ramas are lifelong vocations and not temporary stages. The significant difference between the two divisions is that, unlike one’s varña, one’s å†rama is a matter of personal choice. The individual for the first time plays a central role in the determination of his dharma. The å†rama system ushered in theological changes especially in the understanding of the central concept of dharma. Besides the ordering of society and the resultant ethical codes, it comes to include paths to individual liberation. The Buddha’s use of the term to describe the path he had discovered points to a general reevaluation of the term during that period. As the later Dharma†åstric and epic literature indicate, dharma was no longer viewed as evident so that it was possible to debate the question: what is the true dharma?46 The later history of the å†rama system represents both a retreat from the initial openness and a fuller incorporation of the system into the framework of the Hindu world and ideology. Choice is eliminated and the four å†ramas are transformed from lifelong vocations to stages of life corresponding to the system of the rites of passage (sa∫skåra).47 The å†ramas represent the socio-religious roles suitable to different periods of a man’s life. One assumes these roles through appropriate rites of passage. All these institutions, and in a special way renunciation, are brought within the orbit of Dharma†åstric prescriptions. The importance of the å†rama system within the ideological framework of classical Hinduism is revealed in the cliché varñå†ramadharma, which has been used since at least the beginning of the common era as a shorthand for what we call today Hinduism. A†rama, like varña, was primarily a theological formulation giving a religious basis for social institutions. It would be unwise to consider them as social institutions that guided the day to day life of individuals and society. Their importance was more at the level of theological legitimation than at the level of observable reality. The third å†rama became obsolete at an early age and came to be considered as some45

See Olivelle 1993, 73—111. For detailed studies of the semantic history of dharma see Olivelle 2004b. 47 See MDh 4.1; 6.1—2, 33.

46

58

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

thing to be avoided in the present age (kaliyugavarjya). Though many boys underwent Vedic initiation, it is doubtful whether, apart from Brahmins, many ever went through the long period of Vedic study in a teacher’s house. At the practical level, therefore, we are back to the householder and the renouncer. A theological development parallel to that of the å†rama system is the division of dharma into prav®tti (active) and niv®tti (non-active).48 The former is the dharma of society and is connected with the sa∫såric process. The latter is the dharma of renunciation and is connected with the path to mokßa. As in the å†rama system, here too dharma stands as an umbrella concept able to comprehend both renunciation and society, both mokßa and sa∫såra. Renunciation is often called mokßadharma in Dharma†åstric literature. Likewise, the old trivarga, the threefold aim of life —dharma, artha, kåma— becomes a fourfold division with the inclusion of mokßa. The old opposition is again revealed here; mokßa is a category apart from dharma. A decisive step in the assimilation of renunciatory ideals and values by society was their separation from the external life style of renouncers. The most eloquent proponent of this is the Bhagavad Gœtå. Renunciation is an internal attitude of detachment and not a mere separation from society or an escape from social duties. The Gœtå bases its argument on a theology of karma that separates the external act from the internal motive, and the act itself from its result (phala). True renunciation, the Gœtå says, consists in abandoning all attachment to the results (phalasaõga), while continuing to perform the actions prescribed by one’s dharma solely because they are so prescribed or as an act of devotion to god. Such an internal renouncer the Gœtå calls a continual or permanent renouncer (nityasa∫yåsin) as opposed to the ordinary renouncer who renounces only once, namely at the rite of renunciation (see BhG 5.4). An internal renouncer renounces every time he performs an action. Thus, a householder living in society can be at the same time a renouncer in the “true” sense of the word. Several aspects of a householder’s life are consequently regarded as renunciatory equivalents. Having sexual intercourse with one’s wife only during her season, for example, is equivalent to practicing celibacy.49 Eating after the rest of his household has finished their meal amounts to mendicancy, for then both the householder and the mendicant eat what is left over (vighasåsin), which in turn is equated to eating the remnants of a sacrifice.50 Eating meat only within the context of the ritual makes one a vegetarian.51 In short, following the householder’s dharma constitutes the greatest austeriSee MDh 12.88—91; Baily 1985. See MBh 12.214.10; 3.199.12; Råm 1.8.9; MDh 3.50. 50 See MBh 12.10; 12.11.4—7, 15—28; 12.235.11; 12.21.13. See also Wezler 1978, and H. Bodewitz’s review in WZKS 24 (1980): 239—242, and Wezler’s reply WZKS 25 (1981): 139—143. 51 VaDh 4.6—8; MDh 5.39, 44, 47—48; ViDh 51.61, 64, 67. 48

49

Village vs. Wilderness

59

ty (tapas, †rama); he is an ascetic (tapasvin) and a renouncer (sa∫nyåsin).52 He is often called sarvå†ramin —one who lives at the same time in every å†rama and receives the rewards of all.53 As the various aspects of a householder’s life are now viewed from a different perspective and evaluated according to a renunciatory scale of values, so several features of renunciation are reinterpreted in terms of categories familiar to the societal religion. The dharma literature increasingly views the renunciatory life styles in terms of vow (vrata) and penance act (pråya†citta).54 This places renunciation alongside many other common religious practices falling within these categories. Since vows can be temporary or permanent, renunciatory modes of behavior are often assumed as a vow for brief periods of time by ordinary people for expiatory purposes. Often punishments for major crimes, such as killing a Brahmin, include the adoption of an ascetic life-style by the criminal.55 Renunciation is also viewed as a state resulting from certain Vedic sacrifices, namely Purußamedha, Sarvamedha, and Vi†vajit, at which the sacrificer gives away all his possessions to the officiating priests as their sacrificial fee (sarvadakßiñå).56 Accordingly, in the Brahmanical rite of renunciation the renouncer’s abandonment of possessions is considered a dakßiñå to the priests.57 Individual features of a renouncer’s life are also subject to similar interpretations. The abandonment of fire is regarded as an internalization, and it is ritualized using the Vedic ceremonies associated with the depositing of Vedic fires (agnisamåropa) in the fire sticks or the self when a Brahmin is about to undertake a journey. The renouncer’s itinerancy is viewed as a pilgrimage to holy places (tœrthayåtrå). In medieval bhakti sects renunciation underwent radical changes both conceptually and institutionally. Fleeing from society, as we already saw in the Bhagavad Gœtå, is no longer a central feature. Turning away from the world and worldly affairs is seen as just one aspect of a person’s total surrender to God. Since the founders and leaders of many of these sects were renouncers, they occupied an important social position. The social role of renouncers and of monastic institutions in bhakti sects is the topic of several papers in this collection,58 most notably Glenn Yocum’s study of ThiruvaSee MBh 12.23.6; 12.66.17; 12.10.25; 12.20.6—14; 12.261.10, 58-59; 12.18.19—35. MBh 12.66; 14.33. 54 The YDh, for example, deals with renunciation in the section on penance, a practice followed in later legal digests (nibandha). 55 See BDh 2.1.1.3; ÅpDh 1.9.24.15; 1.10.28.19.21; 1.10.29.1; MDh 11.73, 123—124; 8.93; VaDh 16.33. 56 See ‡B 1.3.6.1—2; 13.7.1; GDh 5.21; BDh 2.3.5.19; MBh 1.90.11; 14.91. On the connection between renunciation and the Vedic sacrifice see Heesterman 1964 and 1982. 57 See MDh 6.38; ViDh 96.1—2; YDh 3.56. 58 Austin B. Creel and Vasudha Narayanan, ed., Monasticism in the Christian and Hindu Traditions: A Comparative Study. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990. 52 53

60

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

vaduthurai Adheenam. John Hawley’s paper also draws our attention to the ambivalent status of asceticism in North Indian bhakti. There were parallel developments within the institution of renunciation that incorporated it more fully into the Hindu structures, developments that I have called the domestication of renunciation. The most significant of these was monasticism. Buddhism and Jainism gave up solitary wandering as the normal way of life at a very early date.59 At least by the middle of the first millenium CE the mainstream Hindu traditions also adopted the cenobitical life style. The monastery, rather than the wilderness, became the place and the symbol of a renouncer’s life. ‡aõkara, the eighth century theologian, is regarded by tradition as the man responsible for organizing Brahmanical renouncers and for establishing monasteries (ma™ha) across India. Ma™has became the common place of residence for ascetics in most medieval sects. The internal organization of these monasteries was monarchical, with an abbot presiding over its affairs, in imitation of the traditional structure of authority in medieval Hindu society. Ma™ha, the monastery of renouncers, and temple, the locus of village religiosity, became the two most important establishments of classical Hinduism. They are parts of a single structure; the wilderness has entered the village. Both within the process of incorporating renunciatory values and in the domestication of renunciation the Brahmin played a central role. Within the religion of society the Brahmin was the functional equivalent of the renouncer. Veena Das (1982, 40—43) describes the relationship between Brahmin and renouncer in terms of “inherent spiritual merit” and “acquired spitiual merit.” In the common religious vocabulary, moreover, the term Brahmin signified besides a member of a priestly class, someone good, virtuous, and superior. Thus there were repeated attempts both in Buddhist and Brahmanical literature to redefine “Brahmin” in term of personal qualities rather than birth.60 It was, therefore, natural that the Brahmin would be the social category that would most readily assimilate the values of renunciation. Two other characteristics of the Brahmin made him a suitable candidate for being homologized with the renouncer. First, the Brahmin ideally did not participate in any economic activity. He obtained his livelihood by the very practice of his special religious profession, namely sacrificing and teaching, while others had occupations different from their religious obligations.61 Second, his was the only varña that was authorized to receive gifts. In both he resembled the renouncer. The use of sacrificial categories to understand renunciation, furthermore, placed the Brahmin, the ritual specialist, at the heart of renunciation. 59

See Dutt 1960; Olivelle 1974. See, for example, the Dhammapada, 24. 61 On the occupation of the four varñas, see MDh 1.88—91, 10.74—80 and the parallel passages in the other Dharma†åstras. 60

Village vs. Wilderness

61

The ritualization of renunciation raised another question that brought renunciation squarely into the caste structure of Hinduism and further strengthened the link between Brahmin and renouncer. The first question in any discussion of a rite centers on the adhikårin —who is qualified or entitled to perform this rite? Dharma†åstric writers are sharply divided on this, some allowing all twice-born classes (that is, Brahmin, Kßatriya, and Vai†ya) to renounce and others restricting renunciation to Brahmins.62 Renouncers are outside the caste system, but that system determines who can become a renouncer. It is clear that throughout history non-Brahmins did become renouncers. Yet the opinion of a significant number of authorities that restrict the entry to Brahmins and the historical fact that the abbots and most monks of important monasteries, such as the ‡aõkara ma™has, were Brahmins further strengthened the identification of the Brahmin with the renouncer. Veena Das (1982, 31—56) has admirably demonstrated how ordinary Brahmins assume the role of renouncers in their relationship with other social classes, and how they function in a mediatory role between renouncers and the people in the world. An interesting point that emerges from our study is the role of Brahmin and renouncer in the area of gift giving (dåna), one of the central features of Hindu ritual and morality. As Manu (1.86) says, giving is the chief dharma of the Kali age. Only Brahmins within the varña system have the duty both to give and to receive gifts; all others only give and do not receive (MDh 10.74—80). Heesterman (1964, 19—22) has drawn our attention to the disappearance of gift exchange in classical Hinduism; giving and receiving, just as purity and impurity, are no longer reciprocal but fixed as the dharma of a particular group. The revulsion against accepting gifts, however, is evident both in the ritual of acceptance63 and in the tendency among Brahmins not to accept gifts at all.64 Thus the best Brahmin is the †rotriya, who accepts no gifts at all. The renouncer represents the other end of the spectrum; he receives but does not give. In one sense this is a reversal of conventional morality. It also makes the renouncer’s function in society similar to that of the Brahmin; they are both the ideal receivers (påtra) in a system where the fruit of giving depends not as much on the intention of the giver as on the quality of the receiver. In his role as giver-receiver the Brahmin functions in a mediatory role: as giver he is opposed to the renouncer, and as receiver he functions as a renouncer vis-à-vis the “others” of Hindu society. Renunciation was never fully domesticated by Hinduism; the radical renouncer who rejects all institutions and defies all conventions 62

See Olivelle 1984, 110—15; 1993, 183—201. The priest does not accept gifts “in a direct way but ‘turning away’ from them and assigning them to various deities.” Heesterman 1964, 19. 64 See ViDh 57.9; YDh 1.213; MDh 4.186; MBh 3.80.31; 12.192.33—40. 63

62

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

is an ever present figure in Indian history and a constant reminder of the antithetical nature of renunciation. Hindu institutions and values were not fully transformed by the assimilation of renunciation; numerous rituals from temple worship to rites of passage have remained untouched by renunciatory values and worldview. The constant praise of the householder and of social values in the Dharma†åstras and other didactic works shows the continuing Brahmanical antagonism toward renunciation. The structure of the classical Hindu world mitigated the opposition; it did not eliminate it. The Hindu world thus includes the renouncer and the man-inthe-world, society and its negation, ritual and the absence of ritual. It is this inclusivism that has contributed both to its richness and diversity and to its endurance.

4. A Denifition of World Renunciation*

Louis Dumont (1960) has drawn our attention to the unique character of world renunciation in India. Renunciation (sa∫nyåsa), it is claimed, is a negative state —as its very name suggests— a denial of all that makes society what it is. Being an anti-structure to the established society, it is defined not by what it is, but by its rejection of the social structures. This is what sets it apart from all other ascetic and religious institutions of the world. Such a view, attractive as it may seem, is always subject to the criticism that it is an alien interpretation made under the influence of certain anthropological and sociological theories. It is, therefore, helpful to examine how the Indian renouncers themselves understood their condition as renouncers. In the very extensive literature on renunciation, both orthodox and heterodox, rarely does one come across a formal definition of renunciation. However, a work entitled Yatidharmaprakå†a by Våsudevå†rama (Ypra; Olivelle 1976—77) begins its discussion of renunciation with just such a definition. I will first give the Sanskrit text and its translation, and then examine how it helps us understand the significance and the essential features of world renunciation in the context of the traditional Indian society and social doctrine. 4.1. sa∫nyåso nåma vidhito g®hœtånå∫ nityanaimittikakåmya†rautasmårtakarmañå∫ praißamantra∫ samuccårya parityågaΔ ÙÙ na ca ku™œcakådau †ikhåyaj∞opavœtadhårañådeΔ karmañaΔ sattvåd avyåptir iti våcyam, “†ikhåyaj∞opavœtœ syåd” ityådivi†eßasmarañåt tatra * Originally published in Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 19 (1975): 75—83.

64

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

†ikhådhårañådeΔ sattve ’pi taditarasarvakarmaparityågasya sattvåd avyåptivirahåt Ù na hy atra yåvatkarmaparityågo vivakßitaΔ, paramaha∫se ’pi tasyåsattvenåsa∫bhavåpåtåt, paramaha∫sasyåpi prågadhœtavaidikakarmakåñ∂aparityåge ’pi svådhyåyådhyayanavidhiprerañayå prågadhœtårañyakopanißacchatarudrœyapurußasüktådidhårañasya devatåpüjanapråñågnihotråde† ca sattvåbhyupagamåt ÙÙ na caiva∫ praißa∫ samuccåryågnihotramåtrasya sa∫dhyåmåtrasya vå parityåge ’tivyåptir iti våcyam, tåd®†aparityåge †ruteΔ sm®ter vå pramåñasyåbhåveña †a†avißåñatulye tatråtivyåpter vaktum a†akyatvåt ÙÙ parityåga† ca niv®ttir eva Ù ata eva sa∫nyåsino niv®tti†åstra evådhikåraΔ Ù na ca “sa∫nyasya †ravaña∫ kuryåd” iti vidhiprav®ttiΔ Ù katham Ù tatra vedånta†ravañetaran na kuryåd iti parisa∫khyå†rayañåt Ù evam anyatråpi “bhikßåcarya∫ caranti” ityådau sarvatra ÙÙ Renunciation is the abandonment of the †rauta and the smårta rites —permanent, occasional and optional— which are known through injunctions, after reciting the ritual formula of the praißa.1 (Objection I) The Ku™œcakas and the rest2 do perform ritual acts, such as wearing the top-knot and the sacrificial thread. Hence, this definition is of insufficient extension. (Reply) That is incorrect. They do, no doubt, wear the top-knot etc., because the sm®tis mention special features (of them), e.g., “He should wear the top-knot and the sacrificial thread.”3 The definition, however, is not of insufficient extension, because they, nevertheless, do give up all ritual acts besides those (explicitly mentioned). For what is intended here (by this definition) is not the total abandonment of all ritual activity; this would be impossible, because it is not found even in the case of the Paramaha∫sa. The latter, no doubt, gives up the ritual portion of the Veda, which he had studied earlier. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that, urged by the injunction to study the lesson proper to one,4 he holds on to the Årañyakas, the Upanißads, the ‡atarudrœya hymn,5 the Purußasükta,6 1

This formula is: sa∫nyasta∫ mayå – “I have renounced.” See below, n. 9.

2 The term ku™œcakådi indicates the first three classes of renouncers, namely, Ku™œcaka,

Bahüdaka, and Ha∫sa, and it deliberately excludes the last class, namely the Paramaha∫sa. 3 Süta Sa∫hitå of the Skanda Puråña, 2.6.4. 4 This refers to the injunction: svådhyåyo ’dhyetavyaΔ – “One should study the lesson proper to one” (‡B 11.5.6.3; TÅ 2.15.7). svådhyåya refers to texts that one is qualified (adhikårin) to study. First of all, this means the texts of one’s own branch of the Veda (sva†åkhœya). In the case of the renouncers, however, it refers to just the j∞ånakåñ∂a, since he has abandoned the ritual portion of the Veda (karmakåñ∂a). 5 VS 16.1—66. 6 ¥V 10.90.

A Denifition of World Renunciation

65

and other similar texts that he had studied earlier, and that he performs rites, such as the worship of gods and the fire oblation in the vital breaths.7 (Objection II) The definition is too extensive, covering the abandonment of just the fire sacrifice or of just the sa∫dhyå worship, after the recitation of the praißa. (Reply) That is also incorrect, for such an abandonment finds no authorization either in the Veda or in the sm®tis, and, consequently, is as impossible as a hare’s horn. How then could the definition be said to extend to it? Further, abandonment is nothing other than inactivity. Precisely for this reason, the qualification of a renouncer extends only to texts that promote inactivity. Now, no activity is entailed by the injunction: “After renouncing one should study,” because there an exclusive specification is resorted to, to wit: “One should not perform any study other than that of the Vedåntas.” The same applies to all other statements, such as: “They lead a mendicant’s life.”8 4.2. This definition has two parts: i. the abandonment of rites, and ii. the recitation of the praißa formula. In examining these, we should bear in mind that the aim of the author is not to define renunciation qua tale, but to define what he regards as true renunciation, namely, that prescribed in the Vedas and the sm®tis. Consequently, the definition has to exclude both the men in the world and renouncers who have not renounced according to the Vedic ordinance, viz. heterodox renouncers and those who were not qualified to renounce, e.g., ‡üdras. Taking the second part of the definition first, the praißa formula, in itself, is only the formal declaration that one has renounced the world. In the context of the Dharma†åstra tradition, however, it indicates something more precise, namely, the culmination of the rite of renunciation in the recitation of the formula: sa∫nyasta∫ mayå —“I 7 This is the offering made in the fire of one’s vital breaths. The formulae used in the rite are given in the CU 5.19—23. After the interiorization of the fires, the renouncer carries them in himself in the form of his breaths: “His outward breath (pråña) is the west fire (gårhapatya), his downward breath (apåna) the south fire, his diffused breath (vyåna) the east fire (åhavanœya), his upward breath (udåna) and his middle breath (samåna) the sabhya and the domestic (åvasathya) fires; he offers in the self” (BDh 2.18.8). For such a person partaking of food itself constitutes this sacrifice. See ‡aõkara on VeS 3.3.39—40. The rite is described in BDh 2.7.12.1—4. See also Heesterman 1964, 22f.; Varenne 1960: II, 69f. 8 BU 4.4.22.

66

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

have renounced,” in the prescribed manner.9 This is followed by the gift of safety to all creatures (abhayadåna): abhaya∫ sarvabhütebhyo mattaΔ —“From me no danger (or fear) will come to any creature.” These two, together with the preceding declaration of intent (sa∫kalpa), are considered the three essential elements of the entire procedure of renunciation.10 Consequently, those in imminent danger of death are permitted to renounce by merely reciting the praißa formula, either vocally or mentally. Besides this particular rite, the phrase praißa∫ samuccårya points to the entire procedure of renunciation (sa∫nyåsavidhi), beginning with the eight †råddhas and ending with the novice putting himself under the charge of a guru. What is of crucial importance, however, to the understanding of the definition is that the recitation of the praißa, being a ritual act (in fact, the last ritual act he will ever perform), A. can only be performed by an adhikårin, i.e., one who is qualified to perform it under the Vedic rules, and B. is valid only if performed according to the prescribed rules of procedure (yathåvidhi).11 This provision, therefore, excludes those who have renounced de facto, but were not qualified to do so, e.g., ‡üdras, as well as those who, although qualified, have renounced without using the proper procedure, e.g. heterodox renouncers. Furthermore, as expressly stated by the author in his reply to the second objection, it excludes partial renunciation, viz. the abandonment of this or that rite. From a theoretical point of view, however, the first part of the definition is of greater importance, since we are principally interested in what constitutes renunciation as such in the eyes of the renouncers, and not in how the one or the other category of renouncers defined itself as distinct from the rest. 9 Two procedures of this rite are given. One is ascribed to ‡aunaka: o∫ bhür bhuvaΔ svaΔ sa∫nyasta∫ mayå sa∫nyasta∫ mayå sa∫nyasta∫ mayeti mandamadhyamottamasvareñoktvå... – “Having said: ‘O· Earth Atmosphere Heaven! I have renounced! I have renounced! I have renounced!’ (first) in a low pitch, (next) in a medium pitch, and (lastly) in a high pitch...” YPra 16.25; YDhS, p. 16. The other procedure is ascribed to the Bahv®capari†iß™a: pråõmukhas tiß™hann ürdhvabåhur brüyåt: o∫ bhüΔ sa∫nyasta∫ mayå, o∫ bhuvaΔ sa∫nyasta∫ mayå, o∫ svaΔ sa∫nyasta∫ mayå, o∫ bhür bhuvaΔ svaΔ sa∫nyasta∫ mayeti trir upå∫†u trir madhyama∫ trir uccaiΔ – “Facing the east, standing with his arms raised, he should say: ’O· Earth! I have renounced! O· Atmosphere! I have renounced! O· Heaven! I have renounced! O· Earth Atmosphere Heaven! I have renounced!’ three times in a whisper, three times in a moderate voice, and three times aloud.” YPra 16.23; YDhS, p. 16. A slightly different procedure is given in BDh 2.10.17.27. 10 atra sa∫nyåso nåma, å†ramåd anå†ramåd vå sa∫nyåså†rama∫ gacchåmœti sa∫kalpaΔ praißoccårañam abhayadåna∫ ceti tritayam eva – “From among the preceding rites, renunciation essentially consists of three alone, namely, the declaration of intent: ‘From a state of life or from outside the states of life, I shall proceed to the state of renunciation,’ the proclamation of the praißa, and the gift of safety.” YPra 20.1. See also YDhS, p. 18. 11 This is one of the two ways–the other being the doctrine of the å†ramas–in which Vedic orthodoxy attempted to assimilate its negation (Olivelle 1993). In both ways, ritual orthodoxy managed to control the entry into a state over which it lacked control, thus, in effect, controlling that state. So, we have the paradox of the state of the abandonment of ritual and rules being instituted by ritual and rule. In some sense, this gave ritual status to the abandonment of the ritual.

A Denifition of World Renunciation

67

Having defined renunciation as the abandonment of all the categories of rites, the author faces the obvious objection that certain classes of renouncers continue to perform some rites.12 His reply is illuminating: “What is intended here is not the total abandonment of all ritual activity.” That is impossible, since even the Paramaha∫sas, the highest class of renouncers, continue to perform a limited number of rites. The fact that renouncers continue to engage in certain activities poses no difficulty, because they are not constitutive of the state of renunciation. We shall see later how these positive actions are to be understood within the framework of the definition. However, the point the author wishes to make is that renunciation is not constituted by these unavoidable positive actions, but by the abandonment as such of the body of ritual, which constitutes life-in-the-world. Whatever positive element there is in the life of the renouncers, even though it may in some way be peculiar to the life of renunciation, is only incidental to renunciation. Comparing renunciation with the other å†ramas, which go to form the life-in-the-world, we note that, although each implies the abandonment of the life style of the preceding, nevertheless, they are defined and constituted not by that negativity but by the positive dharma proper to each. The opposite is true of renunciation, which is not defined by its own dharma, but by the negation of the dharma of life-in-the-world. We may even say that its dharma consists in the denial of the dharma of society. It is this essentially negative nature of renunciation that sets it apart from all other states of life and made it impossible for it to be totally integrated into the å†rama theory of life. This negative character of renunciation is expressed in the descriptive epithets used with reference to the renouncer: anagni (a man without fire),13 aniketa (a man without home).14 The epithet anagni points to one of the most basic features of renunciation, namely the abandonment of fire. In fact, the abandonment of rites, referred to in the definition, is based on the abandonment of fire, because fire is central not only to the theory but also to the actual performance of rites. An important element in the rite of renunciation is the agnisamåropa —the depositing of the ritual fires in the self. After that, the renouncer will never possess external fires; his vital breaths take their place. From then on his only agnihotra will be the pråñågnihotra.15 Right through the long history of Sanskritic culture, fire has occupied a central position. Fire, both as the physical fires of the ritual and 12 The Sanskrit word karma indicates all actions enjoined by rules (vidhi). This includes both strictly ritual acts and those which, in another cultural context, would be regarded as non-ritual acts, e.g., cleaning the teeth, bathing, answering the calls of nature. This distinction of human activity is foreign to the Indian mind, but it is important to take note of this fact so as not to restrict the word ‘rite’ to strictly ritual acts. 13 BDh 2.18.22; ÅpDh 2.21.10; MDh 6.43. 14 BDhS 2.18.22; ÅpDh 2.21.10; MDh 6.43; JåbU 6; Uttarådhyayana, 35.2. 15 See above n. 7.

68

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

as the fire god Agni, was central to the sacrifice, which was the basic element not only of the religion but also of the weltanschauung of the Vedas. Fire was the symbol of Aryan culture and civilisation. Aryans were permitted to inhabit only lands sanctified by fire.16 As the Vedic sacrifices were supplanted by the smårta domestic rites, and the Vedic gods gave way to the Hindu pantheon, fire and Agni continued to remain central to the fabric of orthodox society. The entire dharma of the householder, who occupied the central position in the orthodox social theory, revolved around the fire. It served both to cook his food and to offer oblations. Renouncing fire signifies the rejection of the life-in-the-world in its totality, the denial of the entire value system of society. From it, moreover, are derived many of the characteristic practices of renouncers. Without a fire a renouncer can have no home; so he wanders. Without it he cannot cook his food; so he begs. Even in death he is an anagni; he is not cremated, as is the custom with men in the world, but buried as befits a man without a fire. Toward the end of his discussion, Våsudeva asserts: parityåga† ca niv®ttir eva —“Further, abandonment is nothing other than inactivity.” Consequently, the qualification (adhikåra) of a renouncer extends only to the niv®tti†åstra. The latter refers both to prohibitory texts (nißedha) and to texts dealing with knowledge (j∞ånakåñ∂a). The former restrains a man from activity, while the latter implies no activity. The prav®tti†åstra, on the other hand, consists of injunctions (vidhi), which form the basis of human activity. Both niv®tti and its opposite, prav®tti, have a double significance. The latter indicates both activity and sa∫såric existence based on that activity, both of which are postulates of life-in-the-world. The former signifies both inactivity and the release from sa∫såric existence resulting from that inactivity, which is the goal of renunciation. Next, the author tackles a thorny problem. How is one to explain the positive rules (vidhi) that regulate the life and activities of renouncers? Here he employs a concept borrowed from the Mœmå∫så rules of interpretation, namely, parisa∫khyå —“exclusive specification.” Åpadeva (Mnp, 244) defines it thus: ubhayasya yugapat pråptåv itaravyåv®ttiparo vidhiΔ parisa∫khyåvidhiΔ —“When both alternatives are simultaneously established, an injunction whose business it is to exclude one is an injunction of exclusive specification.” The classical example of such an injunction is: pa∞ca pa∞canakhå bhakßyåΔ —“The five five-nailed (animals) are to be eaten.”17 The natural instinct of man establishes the eating of these as well as of other five five-nailed animals. By specifying the eating of the former it excludes the latter, thereby forbidding the eating of 16

See, for example, the story of King Måthava, recorded in the ‡B 1.4.1.14.

17 MBh 12.139.66; Råm 4.17.39; ÅpDh 1.5.17.35; VaDh 14.39—40; MDh 5.17—18; YDh 1.177;

ViDh 51.6; ‡abara on Pms 10.7.28.

A Denifition of World Renunciation

69

the latter. Hence, although it has a positive form, in reality it is a negative injunction. It is possible, therefore, for a person to refrain from eating the meat of all five-nailed animals, or, for that matter, of all animals. If the above was not a rule of exclusive specification, a person would be bound to eat the meat of these five five-nailed animals. All positive injunctions concerning renouncers are taken to be of the parisa∫khyå type. Thus, the injunction: “After renouncing one should study,” in fact, means: “After renouncing one should not perform any study other than that of the Vedåntas.” This principle should be extended to all other positive injunctions. For example, the rule: “A renouncer should eat food that is begged,” indicates that a renouncer should not eat any food that is not begged. But he is not obliged to beg; he may, for example, refrain from eating altogether. However, if he wants to eat, this rules specifies that he must obtain his food by begging. This rule of interpretation is, no doubt, the outcome of scholastic exegesis, and is often used to explain away difficulties rather than to offer genuine help in understanding them. Nevertheless, in the present case it does offer us a clue to the theological understanding of the life and activities of renouncers. We have already seen that the state of renunciation is constituted by the abandonment of the life of the man in the world. It is basically an “is not” rather than an “is”. However, renunciation does have some positive qualities. Renouncers do have a peculiar style of life and indulge in many distinctive habits and practices. How are we to understand these? The parisa∫khyå interpretation gives us a clue. As far as renunciation is concerned, none of these practices are significant in themselves. Their significance lies in the fact that they constitute the negation of other practices typical of life-in-the-world. What is truly significant is not what a renouncer does, but rather what he implicitly refuses to do by the very fact of doing what he does. Let us take, for example, the practice of begging. In its positive content, it may be viewed as an ascetic practice. As such, the practice of begging among renouncers is not different from that prevalent among Vedic students (brahmacårins) or among medieval Christian friars. However, the significance of begging as an act of renunciation lies in the fact that it is the immediate consequence of the rejection of fire, the central element of life-in-the-world. More directly, it denies the basic function of men in the world —earning a livelihood. Paradoxically, the man in the world, totally dependent as he is on social structures, attempts to have an independent livelihood, while the renouncer, totally independent of all ties and structures, is dependent on what he has rejected for his very existence. In the same way as renunciation qua tale, the various stages of renunciation are also defined negatively as the abandonment of one or many particular practices present in the preceding stage. Thus, for example, the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad (1—2) states:

70

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

kaupœna∫ dañ∂am åcchådana∫ ca sva†arœropabhogårthåya ca lokasyopakårårthåya ca parigrahet Ù tac ca na mukhyam Ù ko ’ya∫ mukhya iti cet Ù aya∫ mukhyo na dañ∂a∫ na †ikha∫ na yaj∞opavœta∫ nåcchådana∫ carati paramaha∫saΔ Ù He (the Paramaha∫sa) should get a loin-cloth, a staff, and a garment, for the good of his own body, and for the benefit of the world. That, however, is not primary. Should one ask: “Who, then, is primary?” (we respond): “This is the one that is primary. A Paramaha∫sa lives without a staff, without the top-knot, without the sacrificial thread, without a garment.”

Commenting on this passage, our author states: “Thus, it is solely the abandonment of the staff and the rest, even though they have been taken possession of, that constitutes the primary state of a Paramaha∫sa.” (YPra 4.108) The essential condition of a Paramaha∫sa, therefore, is as much a negative state with reference to the other stages of renunciation, as renunciation qua tale is with reference to life-in-the-world. From the above analysis of the definition of renunciation given by Våsudeva, we may draw the following conclusions: 1. Renunciation is essentially a negative state constituting an antistructure to the life-in-the-world. 2. The true significance of the positive elements of the renouncer’s life can only be understood by identifying their negative and negating dimension. 3. This negation of the life-in-the-world is central to the goal of renunciation, namely liberation (mokßa), for as life-in-the-world is the epitome of sa∫såra so renunciation constitutes the threshold of mokßa. Although the historical development of the Vedic religion may explain certain of its aspects,18 renunciation erupted into the religiocultural tradition of India as a totally new and unique phenomenon. It represented an anti-structure to the society of that time, a total rejection and the reversal of the value system of the world. Precisely for this reason, it was never totally assimilated into the structures of orthodox society or integrated into the framework of the orthodox doctrine of society. Orthodox thinkers were always ill at ease in dealing with renunciation, so foreign not only to their way of life but also to their framework of thought. As I have shown elsewhere (Olivelle 1993), it presented an embarassment to the propounders of the classical theory of the å†ramas. Nevertheless, society absorbed and integrated many of the values and ideals of the renouncers, who represent the one of the most creative elements of the intellectual history of India. 18

Such an attempt was made by Heesterman 1964.

5. From Feast to Fast : Food and the Indian Ascetic*

Food for humans is more than a mere biological necessity. It is also a cultural construct, and cultural meanings underlie all aspects of the human relationship to food: production, preparation, exchange, and consumption (Lévi-Strauss 1969; Douglas 1975). The cultural construction of food, furthermore, is part of the broader social construction of reality (Berger and Luckman 1967; Berger 1969). Cultural ideas and norms relating to food are thus linked to other significant aspects of culture such as kinship, purity, ritual, ethical values, and social stratification. As Khare (1976) has argued convincingly, no aspect of food can be studied adequately except within the broader cultural system to which it belongs. This paper presents a preliminary sketch of the roles food plays in defining types of ascetic ideology and levels of ascetic practice in India. Even within the context of asceticism, however, food needs to be studied within the broader cultural system of India, in spite of — one might indeed argue precisely because of— the fact that the Indian ascetic ideology is deeply anti-cultural, rejecting most social and cultural products and categories.1 5.1. The Role of Food in the Indian Socio-Cosmic Order It will be useful, therefore, to examine briefly at the outset the place food occupies in the Indian cultural system. I deal here principally with what Khare (1976) calls the primordial level of food circu* Originally published in Rules and Remedies in Classical Indian Law, ed. Julia Leslie, pp. 17—36. Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Vol. 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991. 1 See Olivelle 1975; above pp. 63—70.

72

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

lation, namely, the role food plays in Indian cosmological speculations.2 In this context, food is not merely an edible object but a category of thought. Once the food is considered in such a context, it is primarily a universalized abstract category of thought, following the characteristics the Hindu ideology typically awards it. Hence, food is not bound by specific limitations of time and space, and social and individual relationships. It becomes identified with some primary principles and their organization for explaining the Hindu conception of the cosmos. In this highly expanded and inclusive perspective, therefore, the food acquires a cosmological significance. (Khare 1976, 131)

As a cosmological principle, food plays a central role in several creation myths of ancient India (see Lincoln 1986, 65—86). Prajåpati, the creator god of the Bråhmañas, is often portrayed both as the creator and as the food of his creatures. Indeed, the production of food immediately follows the creation of the first beings; without it, both creator and creatures are threatened by death. In the following myth, the very name of the first-born of creation, Agni, is said to mean “food-eater.” Prajåpati alone, indeed, existed here in the beginning. He considered, “How may I be reproduced?” He toiled and performed acts of penance. He generated Agni (fire) from his mouth; and because he generated him from his mouth, therefore Agni is a consumer of food: and, verily, he who thus knows Agni to be a consumer of food, becomes himself a consumer of food. . . . Prajåpati then considered, “In that Agni I have generated a food-eater for myself; but, indeed, there is no other food here but myself, whom, surely, he would not eat.” At that time this earth had, indeed, been rendered quite bald; there were neither plants nor trees. This, then, weighed on his mind. Thereupon Agni turned towards him with open mouth; and he (Prajåpati) being terrified, his own greatness departed from him. Now his own greatness is his speech: that speech of his departed from him. He desired an offering in his own self, and rubbed (his hands); and because he rubbed (his hands), therefore both this and this (palm) are hairless. He then obtained either a butter-offering or a milk-offering — but, indeed, they are both milk. This (offering), however, did not satisfy him, because it had hairs mixed with it. He poured it away (into the fire), saying, “Drink, while burning (oßa∫ dhaya)!” From it plants sprang: hence their name “plants” (oßadhayaΔ). He rubbed (his hands) a second time, and thereby obtained another offering, either a butter-offering or a milk-offering —but, indeed, they are both milk. This (offering) then satisfied him.... Thereupon that burning one (viz., the sun) rose; and then that blowing one (viz., the wind) sprang up; whereupon, indeed, Agni turned away. 2 Khare (1976, 136) identifies four food cycles: 1. minimal: individual cycle; 2. primary: social-ritual cycle; 3. cosmographic cycle; 4. maximal: primordial cycle.

From Feast to Fast

73

And Prajåpati, having performed the offering, reproduced himself, and saved himself from Agni, Death, as he was about to devour him.3 (‡B 2.2.4.1—7; Eggeling’s translation)

In another myth, Prajåpati is exhausted after his creative endeavours and falls down in a swoon (‡B 7.1.2.1—8). From the eye of the fallen Prajåpati, food flowed forth. Indeed the myth identifies Prajåpati with food. The gods thus tell Agni: “This Prajåpati is food: with thee for our mouth we will eat that food, and he (Prajåpati) shall be food for us” —anna∫ vå aya∫ prajåpatiΔ Ù tvanmukhå etad annam adåma Ù tvanmukhånå∫ na eßo ’nnam asad Ù “Prajåpati,” the Pra†na Upanißad (I.14) echoes, “is food. From it comes semen; from semen are produced these creatures”— anna∫ vai prajåpatiΔ Ù tato ha vai tad retaΔ Ù tasmåd imåΔ prajåΔ prajåyante Ù These and other creation myths of the Bråhmañas make a clear connection between creation, food, and sacrifice. In fact, the Bråhmañas narrate these myths in order to explain the significance of various aspects of Vedic sacrifices. Sacrifices re-enact the creative acts and thereby assure the continuance of food. The sacrificial literature clearly defines the causal chain: sacrifice, rain, plants, food, procreation. He sprinkles (the sacrificial victim) with, “For the water —thee, for the plants!” whereby it (the victim) exists, thereby he thus makes it sacrificially pure. For when it rains, then plants are produced here on earth; and by eating plants and drinking water that sap originates, and from sap seed, and from seed beasts. . . .4

Manu puts it succinctly: “An oblation duly consigned to the fire reaches the sun; from the sun comes rain; from rain, food; and from food, offspring.”5 3 prajåpatir ha vå idam agra eka evåsa Ù sa aikßata katha∫ nu prajåyeyeti Ù so ’†råmyat Ù sa tapo ’tapyata Ù so ’gnim eva mukhåj janayå∫ cakre Ù tad yad ena∫ mukhåd ajanayata tasmåd annådo ’gniΔ Ù sa yo haivam etam agnim annåda∫ vedånnådo haiva bhavati ÙÙ1ÙÙ . . . sa aikßata prajåpatiΔ Ù annåda∫ vå imam åtmano ’jœjane yad agnim Ù na vå iha madanyad annam asti ya∫ vå aya∫ nådyåd iti Ù kålvålœk®tå haiva tarhi p®thivy åsa Ù naußadhaya åsur na vanaspatayaΔ Ù tad evåsya manasy åsa ÙÙ3ÙÙ athainam agnir vyåttenopaparyåvavarta Ù tasya bhœtasya svo mahimåpacakråma Ù våg vå asya svo mahimå Ù våg asyåpacakråma Ù sa åtmann evåhutim œße Ù sa udam®ß™a Ù tad yad udam®ß™a tasmåd ida∫ cålomakam ida∫ ca Ù tatra viveda gh®tåhuti∫ vaiva payaåhuti∫ vobhaya∫ ha tv eva tat paya eva ÙÙ4ÙÙ så haina∫ nåbhirådhayå∫ cakåra Ù ke†ami†reva håsa tå∫ vyaukßad oßa dhayeti Ù tata oßadhayaΔ samabhava∫s tasmåd oßadhayo nåma Ù sa dvitœyam udam®ß™a Ù tatråparåm åhuti∫ viveda gh®tåhuti∫ vaiva payaåhuti∫ vobhaya∫ ha tv eva tat paya eva ÙÙ5ÙÙ så hainam abhirådhayå∫ cakåra Ù . . . tata eßa udiyåya ya eßa tapati Ù tato ’ya∫ prababhüva yo ’ya∫ pavate Ù tata evågniΔ paråõ paryåvavarta ÙÙ6ÙÙ sa hutvå prajåpatiΔ Ù pra cåjåyatåtsyata† cågner m®tyor åtmånam atråyata. . . . (‡B 2.2.4.1—7; Eggeling’s translation here and elsewhere) 4 sa prokßati Ù adbhyas tv außadhœbhya iti tad yata eva sambhavati tata evaitan medhya∫ karoti Ù ida∫ hi yadå varßaty atha oßadhayo jåyanta oßadhœr jagdhvåpah pœtvå tata eßa rasaΔ sambhavati rasåd reto retasaΔ pa†avaΔ. . . . (‡B 3.7.4.4) 5 agnau pråståhutiΔ samyag ådityam upatiß™hate Ù ådityåj jåyate v®ßtir v®ßter anna∫ tataΔ prajåΔ Ù MDh 3.76. See also MaiU 6.37.

74

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

The Taittirœya Upanißad contains some of the boldest statements regarding food and creation: From this very self (åtman) did space come into being; from space, air; from air, fire; from fire, the waters; from the waters, the earth; from the earth, plants; from plants, food; and from food, man. Now, a man here is formed from the essence of food. This here is his head; this is his right side; this is his left side; this is his torso (åtman); and this is his bottom on which he rests. On this, too, we have the following verse: From food, surely, are they born; all creatures that live on earth. On food alone, once born, they live; and into food in the end they pass. For food is the foremost of beings, so it’s called “all herbs.” All the food they’ll secure for themselves, when they worship brahman as food; For food is the foremost of beings, so it’s called “all herbs.” From food beings come into being; By food, once born, they grow. “It is eaten and it eats beings.” Therefore it is called “food.”6

In the next chapter, the same Upanißad expands on the cosmic significance of food: One should not belittle food —that is the rule. The lifebreath is food, and the body is the food-eater. The body is based on the lifebreath, and the lifebreath, on the body. Thus, this food is based on food. When someone knows this food that is based on food —he will become firmly established; he will become a man who has food, who eats food; he will become a big man on account of his offspring, livestock, and the luster of sacred knowledge; he will become a big man on account of his fame. One should not reject food —that is the rule. Water is food, and fire is the food-eater. Fire is based on water, and water, on fire. Thus, this food is based on food. 6 tasmåd vå etasmåd åtmana åkå†aΔ sa∫bhütaΔ Ù åkå†åd våyuΔ Ù våyor agniΔ Ù agner åpaΔ Ù adbhyaΔ p®thivœ Ù p®thivyå oßadhayaΔ Ù oßadhœbhyo ’nnam Ù annåt purußaΔ Ù sa vå eßa purußo ’nnarasamayaΔ Ù tasyedam eva †iraΔ Ù aya∫ dakßiñaΔ pakßaΔ Ù ayam uttaraΔ pakßaΔ Ù ayam åtmå Ù ida∫ puccha∫ pratiß™hå Ù tad apy eßa †loko bhavati ÙÙ annåd vai prajåΔ prajåyante yåΔ kå† ca p®thivœ∫ †ritåΔ Ù atho annenaiva jœvanti athainad apiyanty antataΔ ÙÙ anna∫ hi bhütånå∫ jyeß™ha∫ tasmåt sarvaußdham ucyate Ù sarva∫ vai te ’nnam åpnuvanti ye ’nna∫ brahmopåsate ÙÙ anna∫ hi bhütånå∫ jyeß™ha∫ tasmåt sarvaußadham ucyate ÙÙ annåd bhütåni jåyante jåtåny annena vardhante Ù adyate ’tti ca bhütåni tasmåd anna∫ tad ucyate ÙÙ TU 2.1—2.

From Feast to Fast

75

When someone knows this food that is based on food—he will become firmly established; he will become a man who has food, who eats food; he will become a big man on account of his offspring, livestock, and the luster of sacred knowledge; he will become a big man on account of his fame. One should prepare a lot of food —that is the rule. The earth is food, and space is the food-eater. Space is based on the earth, and the earth, on space. Thus, this food is based on food. When someone knows this food that is based on food—he will become firmly established; he will become a man who has food, who eats food; he will become a big man on account of his offspring, livestock, and the luster of sacred knowledge; he will become a big man on account of his fame.7

These Upanißadic passages establish a correlation between food and eater. Conceptually, one cannot exist without the other. Physically, one becomes transformed into the other. A one-time eater is now the food of another eater which, in its turn, will become the food of a third. Beings eat and are eaten. The whole of creation, therefore, is a vast food chain; it contains food and eaters of food: Hå u! Hå u! Hå u! I am food! I am food! I am food! I am the eater of food! I am the eater of food! I am the eater of food!8

Food is not only the central element of creation; it is also said to be the source of immortality. In the dining ritual, for example, food is called am®ta (the immortal or ambrosia). Before eating, a person sips some water, saying: “You are the seat of am®ta,” and after eating he sips, saying: “You are the cover of am®ta” (Kane 1962—75, II: 763). The ritual use of food underscores both its centrality at the social and cosmic levels and its inherently transactional nature. Food is the central element of a cosmic transaction that maintains both the social and the physical cosmos. Food becomes plentiful only when it is 7 anna∫ na nindyåt Ù tad vratam Ù pråño vå annam Ù †arœram annådam Ù pråñe †arœra∫ pratiß™hitam Ù †arœre pråñaΔ pratiß™hitaΔ Ù tad etad annam anne pratiß™hitam Ù sa ya etad annam anne pratiß™hita∫ veda pratitiß™hati Ù annavån annådo bhavati Ù mahån bhavati prajayå pa†ubhir brahmavarcasena Ù mahån kœrtyå ÙÙ anna∫ na paricakßœta Ù tad vratam Ù åpo vå annam Ù jyotir annådam Ù apsu jyotiΔ pratiß™hitam Ù jyotißy åpaΔ pratiß™hitåΔ Ù tad etad annam anne pratiß™hitam Ù sa ya etad annam anne pratiß™hita∫ veda pratitiß™hati Ù annavån annådo bhavati Ù mahån bhavati prajayå pa†ubhir brahmavarcasena Ù mahån kœrtyå ÙÙ anna∫ bahu kurvœta Ù tad vratam Ù p®thivœ vå annam Ù åkå†o ’nnådaΔ Ù p®thivyåm åkå†aΔ pratiß™hitaΔ Ù åkå†e p®thivœ pratiß™hitå Ù tad etad annam anne pratiß™hitam Ù sa ya etad annam anne pratiß™hita∫ veda pratitiß™hati Ù annavån annådo bhavati Ù mahån bhavati prajayå pa†ubhir brahmavarcasena Ù mahån kœrtyå ÙÙ (TU 3.7—9) 8 hå3vu hå3vu hå3v Ù aham annam aham annam aham annam Ù aham annådo3 ’ham annådo3 ’ham annådaΔ ÙÙ TU 3.10.6. The initial exclamations are probably intended as a cheer to emphasize the proclamation of the identity of the speaker with food.

76

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

shared (TU 3.10.1). The dharma literature admonishes people not to cook for themselves alone; such food becomes poison (BDh 2.5.18). Indian food transactions include all known beings. Food is offered to the gods at sacrifices, to the forefathers at †råddhas, to various beings (bhüta) at balis, and to other humans at hospitality rites and as alms. Indeed, of the five daily duties called Great Sacrifices (mahåyaj∞a), four involve the transaction of food. The interdependence of all beings with regard to food is expressed well in the Bhagavadgœtå (3.10—16): in the beginning, humans and the sacrifice were created together so that humans would sustain the gods through sacrifice; and gods, in their turn, would sustain them by providing rain that produces food. “From food do beings derive, food derives from rain, and rain derives from sacrifice”.9 The interdependence of all beings is expressed in this socio-cosmic food transaction. The cosmos represents a giant food cycle. Food, therefore, should be worshipped. One source prescribes that when a person sees food he should fold his hands, bow to it, and say “May this always be ours.” It goes on to say that whoever honors food honors thereby Vißñu himself.10 The conclusions of Khare’s study of food within the broader cultural system of India accord with this positive evaluation of food. This attitude and behaviour towards food is not restricted to the élite or Brahmanical tradition. Several recent anthropological studies confirm that similar attitudes and behaviour patterns exist at all levels of Indian society.11 The Hindu cosmological model handles food as a necessary precondition for the creation. There is a belief that is widely held even by the illiterate contemporary Hindu: “before God creates life on the earth, He takes care of the question how He is going to feed them.” This idea, a crucial moral axiom, is in-built in Hindu cosmology. (Khare 1976, 132) Historical and textual studies as well as substantial ethnographic research show that Hindu culture in India has preserved, throughout its history, a set of core cultural assumptions concerning the link between human society, food transactions, and divinity. These assumptions are: that the interdependence of men and gods depends on ritual transactions of food between them; that the distinctiveness of various groups in Hindu society as well as the relationship between such groups is ritually constructed in such food transactions with the gods; and lastly, that the ritual concentration and redistribution of food is a critical mechanism for the formation of social groups and the articulation of leadership. (Breckenridge 1986, 24, original italics) 9 annåd bhavati bhütåni parjanyåd annasa∫bhavaΔ Ù yaj∞åd bhavati parjanyo yaj∞aΔ karmasamudbhavaΔ ÙÙ BhG 3.14. 10 The Ådipuråña, cited in Kullüka’s commentary on MDh II.54 (see Kane 1962—75, II: 763). 11 See Khare and Rao 1986; Apte and Katona-Apte 1981; Rösel 1983.

From Feast to Fast

77

Food, therefore, plays a central role in the socio-cultural construction of reality in India. Indian culture has formulated elaborate rules, prohibitions, and classifications with regard to food.12 Rules of proper and improper food provide a clear cultural definition of food. Rules regarding food transactions constitute a social code that strengthens the hierarchical organization of society and demarcates the boundaries of purity. The rules that surround all aspects of food in Indian society can be seen as constituting an elaborate food code.13 One of the keys to deciphering that code is found in the role food plays in the cultural understanding of the socio-physical world, an understanding expressed verbally in creation myths. If food is a code for the created universe, both physical and social, as it appears to be, then one’s behaviour with regard to food is a code for one’s behaviour towards the cosmos. In the above discussion of food within the social world of Hinduism, we saw a remarkably positive attitude towards food and, therefore, towards the cosmos. Abiding by cultural norms regarding food translated into intentions and activities that uphold the socio-cosmic order. 5.2. Fear of Food in Indian Ascetic Traditions But Indian culture also displays a startlingly different attitude towards food: food is dangerous. The perceived danger of food may have several different ideological roots. In this paper, I will focus on the ascetic ideologies14 that both provided a sharp contrast to the views discussed above and contributed significantly to the evolution of Hindu attitudes towards food. The fear of food is nowhere more evident than in the ascetic traditions of India. One of the central features of Indian asceticism — indeed, a defining feature of ascetic life in general and of the various classifications of such lifestyles— concerns food: how one procures it, how one stores it, how one prepares it, and whether and how one eats it (Olivelle 1993, 161—70). The Indian tradition generally acknowledges two somewhat overlapping types of asceticism: the itinerant mendicant (world renouncer) and the sedentary forest hermit. Food habits play a central role both in the definition of these ascetic types and in their further classifications. I will first examine these food habits. Then I will attempt to uncover the general patterns and attitudes that underlie these habits. Finally, with the help of a few creation myths, I will explore the role 12

See Olivelle 2002a, 2002b. Khare (1976) presents an interesting study of several aspects of this code. 14 I am aware that there is no single and uniform ideology among the various Indian ascetic traditions. In this paper, I focus on a few common patterns and principles that they share with regard to food. Nothing that is said here is meant to deny that ascetic food practices may have other ideological roots in addition to the ones discussed here. 13

78

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

food plays in the world view that is at the heart of Indian asceticism and, within that context, attempt to decipher the ascetic food codes. A world renouncer’s behaviour towards food is simple and poignant: he is not permitted to produce, to store, or even to prepare food. As he is not a food producer, he obtains his food by begging; hence his common epithet, bhikßu (mendicant). A renouncer rejects the use of fire and, consequently, does not cook. He begs food that is already cooked or otherwise prepared by householders. He is not permitted to store food, and, therefore, he is required to beg for his food every day. The proper time for begging is after the householders have completed their evening meal. Thus, in effect, he eats their left-overs.15 The subclasses of renouncers also have distinctive methods of begging; indeed, these methods appear to be the defining characteristics of several of these subclasses. The most common classification contains four divisions. The begging of a Ku™œcaka, the lowest class, is nominal. He begs, or, more accurately, eats at the house of his son or relative. A Bahüdaka avoids the houses of relatives and begs his food from seven houses. A Ha∫sa is associated not with a distinct style of begging but with specific forms of fasting. Most sources consider the Paramaha∫sa as not only the highest but also the archetypal renouncer. A Paramaha∫sa’s method of begging is called mådhukara (bee-method): as a bee gathers nectar randomly from many flowers, so a renouncer begs randomly just a morsel each from many houses. He does not choose the houses; there is no forethought. Some sources identify two even higher classes: Turœyåtœta and Avadhüta. A food habit of the former goes under the name govrata, the “cow-vow”, whereby the ascetic imitates a cow and eats the food directly from the ground using only his mouth. One must assume that the donor throws the food on the ground as one would when one gives food to animals. An Avadhüta is associated with the ajagarav®tti, the python’s lifestyle. Here the ascetic does not actively seek food but passively waits for someone to give him food without being asked, just as a python lies in wait for his prey to come to it. Two categories that overlap somewhat with the above classes are påñipåtra and udarapåtra. The former does not use a begging bowl but receives his alms-food in his hands and eats it immediately upon receiving it. The latter does not even use his hands and eats with his mouth directly from the ground. The latter practice appears to be the same as the govrata. Similar divisions of renouncers based on their begging methods are also found in non-Hindu traditions.16 Begging 15 On the question of eating left-overs, generally regarded as impure in Indian religions, see Wezler 1978 and its review by Bodewitz (1980), and Malamoud 1972. 16 For the Åjœvikas, see Basham 1951, 111. Buddhist sources also refer to ascetics who do not accept food brought to them or food specially cooked for them, and to ascetic classes based on begging methods: one-house men who take one mouthful, two-house men who take two mouthfuls, seven-house men who take seven mouthfuls, and the like (Basham 1951, 118).

From Feast to Fast

79

cooked food from randomly chosen houses and imitating the eating habits of animals also show a disregard for purity that is at the heart of Hindu food practices. Renouncers do not engage in any form of food transaction. Theirs is a one-way relationship: they receive but do not give. They do not give food to other human beings. They do not offer food to the gods. As the Laghusa∫nyåsa Upanißad observes: “He eats what he begs; so he should not give alms” (LSaU 21). Having abandoned all rites, they stand outside the food cycle that is at the center of Hindu social and religious activities. A somewhat different set of concerns underlies the food habits of forest hermits. The hallmark of their food practices, as of other elements of their lifestyle, is the fact that they are not mediated by culture. Their food is wild and uncultivated. They eat fruits, roots, leaves, and the like that grow naturally in the forest, and they are forbidden to eat anything that is cultivated or that grows in a village. “He should not step on plowed land, and he should not enter a village’:17 this is the recurrent injunction directed at hermits. There are numerous classifications of hermits given in different sources. These classifications are much more elaborate than those of renouncers. Food habits, nevertheless, play a pivotal role in all of them. The locus classicus is found in the BDh. Baudhåyana divides hermits into two broad categories: those who cook their food and those who do not. Each is subdivided into five subclasses, some of which contain further subdivisions. The five classes of hermits who cook are: 1. those who eat anything in the forest; 2. those who eat only unhusked wild grain; 3. those who eat only bulbs and roots; 4. those who eat only fruit; and 5. those who eat only vegetables. The first group is further subdivided into: a. those who eat only vegetable products, and b. those who eat the flesh of animals killed by carnivorous beasts (in other words, those who eat carrion). The five classes of hermits who do not cook are: 1. those who collect and prepare their food without the use of iron or stone implements; 2. those who use only their hands to eat food that they happen to find by chance; 3. those who use only their mouths to gather and to eat food in imitation of animals; 4. those who subsist only on water; and 5. those who subsist only on air. I cite this long passage because it typifies a common feature of Indian ascetic literature: an obsessive concern with regard to food. Next, the two types of forest hermits: those who cook and those who do not cook. Of these, the hermits who cook are of five types: Sarvårañyaka —eating all forest produce; Vaitußika —eating only husked grain; Kandamü17

na phålak®ß™am adhiß™het Ù gråma∫ ca na pravißet Ù GDh 3.31—32; BDh 2.11.5.

80

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

labhakßa—eating only bulbs and roots; Phalabhakßa —eating only fruits; and ‡åkabhak†a —eating only leafy vegetables. Of these, the Sarvårañyakas are of two types, using two kinds of forest produce. They are the Indråvasiktas —those who use plants produced by rain; and the Retovasiktas —those who use animals produced from semen. Of these, the Indråvasiktas collect the produce of vines, shrubs, creepers, and trees; cook it; offer the daily fire sacrifice with it morning and evening; give portions of it to ascetics, guests, and students; and eat what remains. The Retovasiktas collect the flesh of animals killed by tigers, wolves, hawks, or other predators; cook it; offer the daily fire sacrifice with it morning and evening; give portions of it to ascetics, guests, and students; and eat what remains. Vaitußikas, avoiding grains with husks (BDh 2.2.13), collect husked rice kernels; cook it; offer the daily fire sacrifice with it morning and evening; give portions of it to ascetics, guests, and students; and eat what remains. Those who eat only bulbs and roots, or only fruits, or only leafy vegetables, also do likewise. There are, likewise, five types of hermits who do not cook: Unmajjakas —the submerged; Prav®ttå†ins —eating what is found; Mukhenådåyins — taking with the mouth; Toyåhåras —subsisting on water alone; and Våyubhakßas —subsisting on air. Of these, Unmajjakas avoid using iron and stone implements. Prav®ttå†ins take food in their hands. Mukhenådåyins take food with their mouths. Toyåhåras subsist only on water. Våyubhakßas do not eat at all. Accordingly, ten observances are prescribed for anchorites.18

The Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra (VkhDh 1.7) also divides hermits into two broad categories depending on whether they are with or without a wife. There are four classes of hermits with wives: 1. the audumbara, who subsists on uncultivated herbs, fruits, and roots; 2. the vairi∞ca, who gathers wild food from the direction he happens to face when he gets up in the morning; 3. the vålakhilya, who throws away all his 18 atha vånaprasthadvaividhyam Ù pacamånakå apacamånakå† ceti Ù tatra pacamånakåΔ pa∞cavidhåΔ sarvårañyakå vaitußikåΔ kandamülabhakßåΔ phalabhakßåΔ †åkabhakßå† ceti Ù tatra sarvårañyakå nåma dvividhå dvividham årañyam å†rayanta indråvasiktå reto’vasiktå† ceti Ù tatrendråvasiktå nåma vallœgulmalatåv®kßåñåm ånayitvå †rapayitvå såya∫pråtar agnihotra∫ hutvå yatyatithivratibhya† ca dattvåthetarac cheßabhakßåΔ Ù reto’vasiktå nåma må∫sa∫ vyåghrav®ka†yenådibhir anyatamena vå hatam ånayitvå †rapayitvå såya∫pråtar agnihotra∫ hutvå yatyatithivratibhya† ca dattvåthetarac cheßabhakßåΔ Ù vaitußikås tußadhånyavarja∫ tañ∂ulån ånayitvå †rapayitvå såya∫pråtar agnihotra∫ hutvå yatyatithivratibhya† ca dattvåthetarac cheßabhakßåΔ Ù kandamülaphala†åkabhakßåñåm apy evam eva Ù pa∞caivåpacamånakå unmajjakåΔ prav®ttå†ino mukhenådåyinas toyåhårå våyubhakßå† ceti Ù tatronmajjakå nåma lohå†makarañavarjam Ù hastenådåya prav®ttå†inaΔ Ù mukhenådåyino mukhenådadate Ù toyåhåråΔ kevala∫ toyåhåråΔ Ù våyubhakßå niråhårå† ca Ù iti vaikhånasånå∫ vihitå da†a dœkßåΔ Ù BDh 3.3.1—15.

From Feast to Fast

81

stored food on the full-moon day of Kårttika (October-November), i.e., at the end of the rainy season; and 4. the phenapa, who lives on fruits and leaves that have fallen to the ground naturally (I.7). The VkhDh (1.8) also gives numerous classes of hermits without wives. Many of these have distinctive food habits, such as those who use a stone for grinding; those who use their teeth as a mortar; those who subsist by gleaning; those who live in the manner of doves or deer; those who eat what has been dried by the sun; and those who subsist on yellow leaves. Several passages of the Mahåbhårata also contain similar classifications (e.g., MBh 12.17.10; 12.236.8—12; 13.129.35—55). One is particularly interesting because the principle of classification is the length of food storage. Some store food for twelve years, some for one year, others for a month, and still others do not store at all but gather their food each day (MBh 12.236.8—9). The last are called sadyaΔprakßålaka: they clean the pot immediately after eating because they leave nothing for the morrow. This lifestyle is also called a†vastanavidhi —the “no-tomorrow rule”— and appears to be the same as the “pigeon vow” (kåpotav®tti), namely, gleaning one’s food daily in the manner of a pigeon. 5.3. The Ascetic Food Code The use of descriptions of ascetic practices and classifications of ascetic lifestyles for historical purposes poses serious problems. These descriptions and classifications are found principally in normative literature such as the epics and Dharma†åstra. It is impossible to determine their correspondence to the reality of ascetic life in any given area or sect, or at any given period of Indian history. My purpose here, however, is not to construct an historically accurate description of Indian ascetic practices. Rather, I am attempting to uncover the role of food within the ascetic world view and to decipher the meaning of food codes embedded in food habits enjoined on ascetics, even though these rules may not have corresponded exactly to historical practices at any given time and place. For this purpose, the connection between precept and practice is not a crucial point. Like stories in mythic accounts, these descriptions may not give us accurate historical information; they nevertheless provide us with useful insights into the ascetic world and its relationship to social values and mores. The first task in the process of deciphering the ascetic food code is to uncover any basic patterns that may underlie the diversity of ascetic food habits, patterns that would allow us to make some useful generalizations regarding food within the context of the ascetic world view. It appears to me that there are four distinct areas of the human relationship to food that play significant roles in the ascetic food practices: production or procurement, storage, preparation, and consumption. In each of these areas, humans expend enormous effort and energy, which I shall call the human “food effort”. The sustained

82

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

and life-long effort to procure sufficient food is a biological impulse common to humans and animals. Humans, however, are able collectively to anticipate the future, to discover the laws of nature, and to develop technologies of production and storage in ways far superior to those of animals. The human food effort thus becomes a social and cultural enterprise, determining many of the social, political, and economic structures that constitute human society. Among humans, the food effort is culturally mediated also at the levels of preparation and consumption. Cooking and the entire culinary art, as well as the rules and customs that regulate the process of eating, are culturally defined. Moreover, most cultures, including the Indian, invoke rules of ritual purity and impurity with reference to all aspects of food. The major pattern that emerges from the ascetic food practices that we have discussed is the minimization and, at some levels, even the elimination of the human food effort in each of the four areas: production, storage, preparation, and consumption. At the level of production, ascetic behaviour demonstrates a progressive lessening of effort directed towards procuring food, culminating in its total elimination. All types of ascetics abandon cultural mediation in food production; this, indeed, appears to be a hallmark of Indian asceticism. Hermits are food gatherers. They obtain food from sources that have not been mediated by culture, eliminating all forms of technology and planning inherent in agriculture and animal husbandry. Not only are they forbidden to eat anything grown on plowed land, they are even forbidden to eat fruit from cultivated trees and milk from domestic cows. As we move higher in the classification of hermits, we see a lessening of effort directed towards food procurement; the highest classes do not procure food at all, living on water or air. Renouncers are food gatherers of a different sort; they gather or, more precisely, beg food that has already been prepared by others. The significant difference is that their food procurement, unlike that of hermits, is dependent on another’s generosity. They do not own food. The highest types do not direct any effort towards procuring food; they remain still like a python awaiting what they may receive by chance. We have seen that although some types of hermits do store food, their advancement in asceticism is marked by a decrease in the length of such storage. The most advanced hermits, like all renouncers, do not store at all; they procure their food day by day. A central feature of ascetic food production and storage appears to be the progressive elimination of forethought and planning. Some hermits, for example, go in the direction they happen to face when they get up in the morning in order to gather food. Renouncers are expected not to choose houses beforehand but to visit them at random. At the highest level, everything is left to chance. The imitation of animals —cow, deer, pigeon, python— also points to the gradual but certain elimination of planning, a feature that sets humans apart and that is the basis of human economic activities.

From Feast to Fast

83

In the preparation of food, likewise, ascetics avoid cultural mediation. Although food may be prepared without the use of fire, cooking is nevertheless the basic method of making it fit for human consumption. Renouncers possess no fire and do not participate in food preparation; they beg food that is already prepared. Hermits are divided into those who cook and those who do not; in all classifications, the latter group is considered more advanced in asceticism. Not cooking appears to be another hallmark of Indian asceticism. Ascetics also abandon the normal rules of etiquette in relation to the eating of food. This is apparent especially in the higher classes of ascetics who possess no utensils. They eat with their hands or pick up food with their mouths straight from the ground, imitating thereby the eating habits of animals. The absence of a permanent symbol of the food-effort (such as a begging bowl), moreover, symbolizes their lack of concern or forethought with regard to food. This lack of concern for food is illustrated in the command that an ascetic should remain the same both when he receives alms-food and when he does not (MDh 6.57). He is also expected to eat just enough to sustain life; he takes food as he would take medicine, not because he enjoys it but because it is necessary (K†rU 33; BDh 2.18.10). When the minimization of the food-effort is taken to its logical conclusion, an ascetic would not even make the effort to take food into his mouth or to swallow it. This is religious suicide by fasting, a well-known and respected way of ending life in numerous Hindu and non-Hindu traditions (Dundas 1985). 5.4. The Cosmic Role of Food in the Ascetic Ideology If minimizing the food effort is a major principle behind ascetic food practices, what is the ideology or world view that would sustain that principle? To answer this, I will turn once again to the creation myths, but this time to the myths that portray a decadent and progressively decaying universe. In the first part of this paper, we dealt with the cosmic role of food as represented in one stream of the tradition that goes back to the Vedic period, a stream that regards creation as a positive act. If, however, creation is regarded as a fall from a more perfect state, then the same cosmic role of food would undoubtedly impart a negative value to food. This is precisely what happened within the context of the sa∫såric view of creation shared by all ascetic traditions. Here I discuss two significant creation myths, one Buddhist and the other Hindu. The Buddhist myth is found in the Agga∞∞a Sutta of the Dœgha Nikåya.19 In the beginning, the myth goes, people lived in a world of 19 The same myth is also recorded in the Mahåvastu (Senart 1882—97, 338—48; Jones 1949, 285—93). The Mahåvastu account agrees substantially with that of the Agga∞∞a Sutta. I am aware that some scholars consider the use of food in this myth to be entirely satirical,

84

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

radiance. They were made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, and glorious. The world then was characterized by the absence of all distinctions: Now at that time, all had become one world of water, dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared, no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only.

This state, viewed as chaos in other myths, is considered here as the paradisiacal time of the beginning. On this cosmic water, the earth began to take shape in the form of a floating scum. It tasted like honey. One of those beings tasted that “savory earth” and others followed his example. As they ate, they became filled with craving. Thereupon, their inner luminosity faded away and, outside, there appeared the sun, the moon, and the stars. As those beings continued to feed on the “savory earth”, their bodies became more and more solid and distinctions began to appear between them. Some became more beautiful than others. The Mahåvastu version adds the interesting detail that those who ate more became ugly, whereas those who ate less became handsome. The handsome ones, however, were filled with pride, vanity, and conceit, and they began to despise the others. As a result, the savory earth disappeared and the beings lamented its loss. After the disappearance of the savory earth, outgrowths appeared on the soil; they sprang up spontaneously like mushrooms. They had the golden hue of fine ghee and tasted like the best honey. The beings then began to feast on those mushrooms. As they did so, their bodies became increasingly solid and greater distinctions appeared between them. The superior and more handsome ones were filled with pride and despised the inferior ones. “And while they, through pride in their beauty, thus became vain and conceited, these outgrowths of the soil disappeared.” The outgrowths were replaced by creepers and the beings began to feast on them. As they ate, the distinctions between them became a pun on the elevated status accorded to food in Brahmanical accounts of creation (Gombrich 1992). A certain amount of satire is obviously present in any polemical literature; and there is a large polemical component in most of the ancient ascetic literature of India. It is equally obvious, however, that this myth is not pure satire. If it is, then later Buddhists do not appear to have seen the joke. The myth is presented with a serious intent in the Mahåvastu. If it were pure satire, it would be difficult to explain why the author of the myth should have gone into such minute detail regarding food, food production, sexuality, houses, and social structures. The use of this myth in the Buddhist explanation of the origin of kingship, and the parallel account in the Liõgapuråña, also argue against pure satire. The parallel between the myth’s account of early food habits and ascetic food practices could not have been accidental. The authors of the Buddhist law books of Burma imitate Manu in opening their treatises with the Agga∞∞a Sutta myth about the origin of the universe. They clearly saw it as a truly Buddhist account of creation. For a detailed discussion of this text, see Collins 1993.

From Feast to Fast

85

more pronounced, and their pride, vanity, and conceit increased. The creepers then disappeared and they were replaced by rice. This primordial rice was without the husk or brown powder that today covers the grain. It did not have to be cultivated, and it could be eaten as it was picked. As the beings continued to eat that rice, there arose the final differentiation: some became men and others became women. Lust and passion entered the hearts of those sexually differentiated beings, and they began to have sexual intercourse with each other. The event that finally destroyed that early paradisiacal state was the act of food storage. Until now rice had grown spontaneously in a form that needed no preparation and was ready to be eaten. When one crop had been gathered, another appeared the next day. But some of those early people were lazy and did not want to go out each morning and afternoon to gather rice. They began to fetch enough rice for more than one day: Now from the time that those beings began to feed on hoarded rice, powder enveloped the clean grain, and husk enveloped the grain, and the reaped or cut stems did not grow again.

Rice now had to be cultivated and prepared before it could be eaten. People then set boundaries around rice paddies giving rise to ownership and private property. Private ownership in turn gave rise to stealing, to violence, and finally to the need for government and social structures. That is the origin of the world and society as we know it. In this myth, the crucial act that precipitated the fall from the paradisiacal state was eating. It was also responsible for the origin of the cardinal vices of Buddhism: greed, pride, and lust. As eating gave rise to individual vices, hoarding food was the source of social ills and created the need for social structures. The second myth comes from the Liõga Puråña (1.39). It is narrated within the context of the description of the gradual deterioration of the universe associated with the doctrine of yugas. The scholastic explanation of the yugas, and of their respective characteristics within which this myth is embedded, has undoubtedly altered some features of the myth. But its broad thrust is still discernible. The first of the four yugas was the k®ta, during which people were totally blissful. They were not differentiated into superior and inferior; without fixed abodes, they lived on mountains and in the ocean; and they moved about at will, always finding delight in their own minds. The last two yugas, dvåpara and kali, do not play a significant part in the myth as narrated in the Liõga Puråña. The major events of the myth take place in the second yuga, tretå. As the k®tayuga came to an end, clouds formed in the sky, and rain began to fall on the earth. When the earth came into contact with the rain, a special kind of tree

86

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

called kalpav®kßa appeared. These trees produced spontaneously everything that the people needed: clothes, fruits, ornaments, and honey, as well as shelter. Greed, however, took hold of them, and they began to cut the trees and to take the honey from them forcibly. The trees disappeared. The people began to be harassed by heat and cold, by hunger and thirst. So they had to build houses. Meanwhile, rain produced rivers and lakes, and a variety of vegetation appeared. This vegetation continued to provide food for the people without the need for cultivation. Out of greed, again, people began to take trees and herbs by force. They in turn disappeared. Thereafter, people had to obtain their food through cultivation. Violence then set in, and the Kßatriya race —in other words, the governmental apparatus— was created to bring order to society. This myth differs from the previous one on several major points. For example, eating itself is not identified here as a cause of the fall. But it is portrayed as one step in the gradual deterioration of the cosmos, because in the very beginning there was neither food nor the need for eating, and because greed is portrayed as an outcome of eating. In the Buddhist myth, moreover, the cause of the deterioration is clearly identified: deliberate human actions. In the Puråñic myth, however, there is some ambivalence. Human actions clearly play a role, but there is also the automatic functioning of the time cycle represented by the yugas. Both myths, however, portray the ideal world as one in which nature provides everything humans need. So long as they take only what they need each day, this condition continues. Taking more than one needs, hoarding for the future, creation of ownership: these results of greed are the basic causes of the world’s deterioration. The downward spiral is something like this: eating, a progressive addiction to and dependence on food, a progressive difficulty in obtaining food, an increasing effort towards procuring food, the hoarding of food, the disappearance of spontaneous food, and finally the need for food cultivation and for social, economic, and political constructs.20 5.5. The Ascetic’s Withdrawal from Food These myths establish an important correlation between four factors: 1. food, 2. cardinal vices, 3. the development of the physical universe, and 4. the creation of socio-political structures. The Vedic myths had already established the correlation between food and the creation of the physical universe. Within that context, however, food 20 In these as in other Indian myths, the time of beginning is not absolute. It is only one point in a larger time cycle that includes the periodic birth and death of the universe. Within the sa∫såric view, it is this larger cycle and our place in it that are of concern. Moreover, none of these traditions considers food or eating as the cause of our entrapment in sa∫såra. Ascetic behaviour towards food, however, appears to play a significant role in the overall search for liberation from that entrapment.

From Feast to Fast

87

and creation have the positive connotations of fostering life and fertility. In the latter myths, the correlation is maintained and intensified but the context has changed dramatically. Human life as we experience it is no longer seen as a positive thing; it is defined as a state of bondage and suffering. Creation is not a positive act but a fall from, or a deterioration of, a more perfect eternal condition. Two central concepts govern the post-Vedic conception of reality: prav®tti and niv®tti. Prav®tti signifies the emergence, the evolution or growth, and the sustained existence of the cosmos. It connotes action, especially ritual action. Niv®tti signifies the opposite, namely, the reversal of the cosmic progress, and the final cessation of the cosmos. It connotes non-action and total quietude. Although these concepts parallel the more common sa∫såra-mokßa dichotomy, they have a broader semantic compass than the latter and indicate not only the states of sa∫såra and mokßa but also the processes that lead to and sustain these states. In most Indian systems of salvation, therefore, prav®tti is the way of the world and includes much of what passes as dharma, whereas niv®tti is the way to liberation. As the myths portray and ascetic behavior appears to assume, food, and in particular the human food effort, is an integral and even a central element of prav®tti, and therefore of the miserable condition of our present existence. Food and eating are insidious. The more you eat the more you become entangled in and dependent on food and the food effort. Food is the major source of the cardinal vices: greed, pride, and lust. Indeed, the myths assign a secondary role to sex. Sexual differentiation and sexual activity are the result of food. Food is also the major way in which humans relate to and become part of the physical world. It is also the vehicle through which the physical world reacts to the human involvement in it. Thus the more people eat the more difficult the world makes it for humans to procure food. This difficulty gives rise to the private ownership of the means of production (represented by the boundaries drawn around paddy fields), to the culturally mediated production of food, to social vices such as theft and violence, and finally to the socio-political structures of present-day society. Given this correlation between food and creation, it appears that attitudes and behavior towards food can be a code for a person’s relationship to the created universe. This, I believe, is true with respect to the ascetic food practices of India. It is significant that the way in which humans lived and obtained food during the early period of creation parallels the way ascetics are expected to live and to obtain their food. The food code of ascetics appears to have both a cosmological and a soteriological dimension and meaning. The progression of ascetic withdrawal from the food effort is a mirror image of the progression of cosmic evolution, an evolution produced precisely by the human involvement in the food effort. In their attempt to become disentangled from the universe, ascetics seek to separate themselves from that food effort.

88

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Ascetic behaviour with regard to food begins where the creative process ends: ownership of food combined with the culturally mediated production of food. All types of Indian ascetics, as we have seen, abjure the ownership and production of food. All Indian ascetics are food gatherers, as all humans were at the beginning of creation. Renouncers gather food produced and prepared by others, whereas hermits gather raw food from sources not culturally mediated. This relationship to food appears to be a sine qua non of Indian asceticism. In the myths, food production was necessitated by the disappearance of spontaneous food, whose disappearance in turn was caused by food storage. Storing food and securing its availability for the future are the central concerns of human economic activity that asceticism seeks to eliminate. Indefinite storage of food is forbidden in all forms of asceticism. Definite time limits are set for various types of ascetics. Indeed, the ascent in asceticism is related in all cases to the decrease and finally the elimination of food storage. The highest ascetics, whether they be renouncers or hermits, do not plan for the future; they do not prepare for tomorrow (a†vastana; see MBh 12.159.11; 12.236.8—9). Food preparation is another area in which ascetics seek to minimize their food effort. Many classes of hermits are distinguished by their refusal to use artificial implements to prepare food. Some give up the use of iron and stone implements, while others use only their teeth to grind their food. The major cultural tool in human food preparation, however, is fire, and cooking is the chief means of making food fit for human consumption. The myths tell us that, in the beginning, nature produced food that was ready for immediate consumption: artificial preparations became necessary only when cultivation was required to produce food. Fire and cooking, the symbols of cultural mediation in food preparation, are given up by all renouncers and by the higher classes of hermits. Hermits eat raw food —food, as the sources say, that has been cooked by time (MDh 6.17). Renouncers receive food that has been cooked by others. The final stage in the ascetic withdrawal from the food effort occurs when ascetics suspend all positive acts aimed at the procurement of food. At the highest levels of ascetic endeavour, ascetics become totally passive. They eat only what they obtain by chance or what is given to them unasked. A good example of this passivity is the python vow (ajagarav®tti) of renouncers. The last step in the withdrawal from the food effort should logically be the elimination of eating. We find examples of this in many ascetic traditions of India, even though suicide by fasting or by other means is not countenanced in several traditions.21 That 21 The Buddhist opposition to suicide and its goal of moderation (the middle way) in all activities, including eating, are well known. The MDh (6.45) exhorts the renouncer not to long for death or for life, but to await the appointed time of death. On suicide, see Olivelle 1978, below pp. 207—229.

From Feast to Fast

89

this final and logical conclusion is not drawn in all traditions does not argue against our claim that ascetic behaviour towards food is marked by the minimization of the food effort. Clearly social reality does not always follow logical paths. The very bodily condition of humans places natural limits on ascetic behaviour, even though theological justifications are often offered for those limits. 5.6. Conclusions The ascetic attitudes towards food, therefore, present a sharp contrast to the system of values embodied in Vedic myths and in later Hindu rituals. In India, however, these two viewpoints did not exist in isolation. They influenced each other to such a degree that what we find on the ground is often a hybrid with complex and often contradictory attitudes towards food. In food, as in other areas, the Hindu world is complex and composite. It values and devalues food. Food is life and death, happiness and suffering. Food is to be worshipped as a god and to be shunned like a demon. It nourishes and it entraps. This very ambivalence towards food and towards the social and physical universe is a hallmark of the Hindu world.

6. The Beast and the Ascetic : The Wild in the Indian Religious Imagination m®gaiΔ saha parispandaΔ sa∫våsas tebhir eva ca Ù tair eva sad®†œ v®ttiΔ pratyakßa∫ svargalakßañam ÙÙ Moving about with wild beasts, And dwelling with them alone, Living a life just theirs — Clearly that’s the way to heaven.

This extraordinary verse concludes Baudhåyana’s description of both the holy householders (BDh 3.2.19) and the forest hermits (BDh 3.3.22). In many religions the pursuit of holiness has been associated with renunciation and fleeing from society. Living austere and often solitary lives in the wilderness, forest, or desert is viewed in many traditions as a sign of holiness. An extreme expression of this attitude is the practice of imitating the life style and behavior of wild animals. The Desert Fathers of early Christianity are depicted as living like animals. According to a contemporary description, the monks in the Syrian desert “had one garment, went barefoot, mortified themselves, ate grass, legumes and roots, wandered about on the mountains like wild animals. …”1 “I looked,” says a monk describing his encounter with a Desert Father, “I saw a man afar off, who was very fearful. His hair was spread over his body like a leopard. . . . When he approached me, I was afraid. I climbed on a mountain peak, lest perhaps he was a mountain ass. . . . He said to me: ‘Onnophrius is my name and, 1 Vööbus 1960, 25. See Devin DeWeese, Wilderness and Barbarian: Favourable Evaluations of the Wilderness and the Wilderness Peoples in Medieval Christian and Islamic Literature. MA Thesis, Department of Religious Studies, Indiana University, Bloominton. Lord Chalmers in the introduction to his translation of the Majjhima Nikåya (I.xvi) observes that the Indian ascetics who acted like bovines “anticipated by a thousand years those Christian anchorites who ‘derived their name from their humble practice of grazing in the fields of Mesopotamia with the common herd’.”

92

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

behold, for sixty years I have been in the desert, walking in the mountains like the animals.’”2 “Behold,” says Ephrem, “they graze like animals for roots upon the mountains, and behold like birds they pick up dry vegetables from the heights.”3 It may well be that some of these descriptions contain metaphor and hyperbole; it is unclear whether the Christian ascetics consciously imitated animal behavior. In India, however, the imitation of animals is systematically developed within a well articulated ascetic ideology, even though the historical reality behind that ideology — whether there were ascetics who behaved like animals— remains uncertain. This paper will focus on the ideology rather than on the historical realities of Indian asceticism. In the Indian ascetic ideologies, moreover, life in the wilderness and the imitation of wild animals carry a deeper meaning. They are expressions of the belief that an ascetic’s life style is the antithesis of all that civilization stands for. The first and the most obvious feature of the ascetic anti-civilization is the ideal-typical habitat of ascetics. From the time of the Upanißads, all ascetic traditions, both Brahmanical and heterodox, enjoin the wilderness or the forest as the place where ascetics should live their lives.4 Renouncers are allowed to enter a village only to beg,5 while forest hermits are forbidden even to step on plowed land.6 A forest hermit is expected to avoid everything connected with the village (gråmya), be it food or clothing.7 He is not allowed to eat cultivated food; his food is only what grows naturally on uncultivated land: na phålak®ß™am a†nœyåd uts®ß™am api kenacit Ù na gråmajåtåny årto ’pi pußpåñi ca phalåni ca ÙÙ He must never eat anything grown on plowed land, even if it has been thrown away by someone; or flowers and fruits grown in a village, even if he is in dire straits. (MDh 6.16)

This ideology, therefore, reduces the hermit to the level of a food gatherer. His clothes are made of tree bark (cœra, valkala) or animal skins.8 Renouncers, the wandering mendicants, are expected to go 2

MacDermot 1971, 278. Vööbus 1960, 26. 4 See, for example, DN II.77, 242, 284; III. 49; MN I.323, 333, 425, 440; III.3, 35, 82, 115—16; SuNi 958—59; VaDh 10.15—17; BDh 2.11.15, 17; GDh 3.26; MDh 6.4. 5 “Living always in the wilderness, let him never walk within sight of village animals” — arañyanitya∫ Ù na gråmyapa†ünå∫ sa∫dar†ane vicaret Ù VaDh 10.15—16. See also GDh 3.14; MDh 6.43; MBh 12.237.5. 6 “He should not step on plowed land or enter a village” — na pålak®ß™am adhiß™het Ù gråma∫ ca na pravi†et Ù GDh 3.32—33. See also BDh 2.11.15; VaDh 9.3; VkhDh 3.5; Råm 4.25.9. 7 Uncultivated food is referred to as “sage’s food” (munyanna): MDh 3.257, 272; 5.54; 6.5, 11; YDh 1.260. “Giving up village food and all his belongings, he should go to the forest.” MDh 6.3. See also MBh 12.185.2; Kürma Puråña 2.27.13; VaDh 9.4; VkhDh 2.4; ÅpDh 2.22.1; YDh 3.46; Ahirbudhnya Sa∫hitå 15.56; A†vaghoßa’s Buddhacarita 7.14. 8 See BDh 3.2.18; 3.3.19; VaDh 9.1; MDh 6.6; ViDh 94.8; MBh 3.145.29; 13.129.40; 13.130.12. 3

The Beast and the Ascetic

93

naked or to use rags.9 Naked, he is like an animal or a baby, both symbols of a non-civilized state. Jåtarüpadhara (“bearing the form one had at birth”), a common term for the renouncer’s naked condition, indicates his return to the infant state.10 Civilizations, especially the economic aspects of civilizations, are built on anticipation and foresight. Planning for the future and the storage of goods are basic to an economy. They create surpluses and security, free many people from the daily grind, and facilitate leisure and the creative activities that we associate with civilization. Ascetics on the contrary are expected to live from day to day. Not possessing stores, not hoarding is a hallmark of Indian asceticism. Renouncers are expected to beg their daily food and not to keep any leftovers for the morrow. Hermits and even holy householders are often classified according to how much each is allowed to store.11 The highest category of ascetic collects only what can be consume that very day. This practice is called a†vastanavidhåna, the method of not providing for tomorrow.12 All hermits, in any case, are expected to throw away all their stores during the month of ņvina (September-October).13 Ascetics are thus reduced to the level of animals, who forage daily for their sustenance. Significantly, the major portion of most ascetic codes of ascetic rules deals with the gathering and the eating of food. Purity and cleanliness, furthermore, are central features of civilized living. This is especially true in ancient India, where ritual purity is a central element of societal religion. Ascetics, however, are often depicted as dirty and loathsome.14 The greater the dirt, the better the ascetic. Hermits are not allowed to cut their nails and hair.15 The Buddha himself, describing his former austerities, claims that he let dirt gather on his body for so long that it peeled off by itself. Never once did he clean it (MN I.78). There is also the fascinating story about the great ascetic, Vyåsa, the author of the epic Mahåbhårata. He was called upon to father children for his dead brother, Vicitravœrya (MBh 1.99—100). While accepting this role, Vyåsa remarks that his brother’s wife, Ambikå, should “bear with my ugliness. If she bears with my smell, my looks, my garb, and my body, Kau†alyå shall straightway conceive a superior child” (MBh 1.99.42—43). His odor and sight are so overwhelming, however, that Ambikå is unable to bear them. She closes her eyes when he comes to bed. So her son, See GDh 3.18—19; ÅpDh 2.21.11—12. See JåbU 70.3; NpvU 153.5; 155.3; 168.11, etc. See Sprockhoff 1976, 207, note 33. 11 See BDh 3.2.11—18; MDh 4.7; 6.18; ViDh 94.11—12; YDh 1.124—28; MBh 12.236.8—9; Kürma Puråña 2.27.21—22. For the food of ascetics, see Olivelle 1991 (see above, pp. 71—89). 12 See BDh 3.3.21; 4.5.28; ÅpDh 2.23.1; MDh 4.7; 6.18; MBh 12.159.11. 13 See MDh 6.15; VaDh 3.5; YDh 3.47. Other texts forbit the eating of anything that has been hoarded for more than one year: BDh 2.11.15; GDh 3.35. 14 See MBh 1.110.8; 1.201.17; 3.119.19; 3.123.7; 5.187.18—20; 12.9.13; 12.253.3; 15.33.17; Råm 3.6.4; MN I.181. 15 MBh 3.186.41; 13.144.12. 9

10

94

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Dh®taråß™ra, is born blind. When Vyåsa approaches Ambikå’s co— wife, Ambålikå, she turns pale and as a consequence bears Påñ∂u, the pale one. When Ambikå’s turn comes again, she loses courage and sends her slave-girl in her stead! The use of fire separates man from beast. In the Vedic society fire was the central symbol of both civilization and religion. It played a central role in the Vedic sacrifice. At his marriage the Brahmanical householder lights a sacred fire; it will serve him for the rest of his life. The abandonment of fire by renouncers, therefore, which indicated their rejection of ritual and society, can also be seen as a symbol of their return to the non-civilized state. They did not use fire for cooking (they begged cooked food) or for ritual purposes. Even at death they were not cremated; lacking a fire, they were buried. It is within the context of this anti-civilizational ideology that the animal symbolism in Indian ascetic literature needs to be understood. Acting contrary to the norms of civilized behavior, an ascetic imitates animals, the inhabitants of the wild. The animal most commonly associated with the ascetic life style is the deer. The term m®ga used in ascetic texts, however, can mean either a deer in particular or a wild animal in general. Either interpretation is adequate, because the purpose of the texts is to show that ascetics should roam in the wilderness and flee human company. I think that most texts, however, refer to the deer in particular. M®gacårin (wandering with/like deer) is the name of a class of ascetics living in a hermitage visited by K®ßña (MBh 13.14.39). Likewise, in Kålidåsa’s Vikramorva†œya (4.36—37) and in A†vaghoßa’s Buddhacarita (7.5) certain hermits are identified as m®gacårin. In the VkhDh (1.8) also m®gacårikå is considered a class of forest hermits. It is not totaly clear what special mode of life the m®gacårin ascetics followed. Some information is contained in the episode of Mådhavœ, the daughter of Yayåti, contained in the Mahåbhårata. At her svaya∫vara (the ceremony at which she chose her husband) Mådhavœ spurns all her suitor and enters the forest: Yayåtœ’s daughter descended from the chariot, bowed to her relatives, went to the holy forest, and practiced austerity. By means of various fasts, observances, and restraints, she made herself light and lived like a deer (babhüva m®gacåriñœ). She grazed soft green sprouts of the color of beryl, fine grasses pungent and sweet; she drank the choice waters, tasty and pure, cool and unmuddied, of holy streams; she roamed in forests deserted by lions, where deer were king, empty and dense and left alone by fires, alongside antelopes, like a deer roaming the woods (carantœ hariñaiΔ sårdha∫ m®gœva vanacåriñœ); and practiced the dharma thoroughly, decked with chastity. (MBh 5.118.6—11; van Buitenen’s translation modified)

Elsewhere the comparison with deer is more general. I cited at the outset the text of Baudhåyana (3.2.19) which declares that the

The Beast and the Ascetic

95

way to heaven consists of imitating the life of a m®ga —deer or wild beast. The goddess death, m®tyu, practising penance “roamed with the deer” for a billion years (MBh 12.250.19). The Buddha, describing his past austerities, says: The mere glimpse of a cowherd or neatherd or grasscutter, or of a man gathering firewood or edible roots in the forest, was enough to make me dart from wood to wood, from thicket to thicket, from dale to dale, and from hill to hill —in order that they might not see me or I them. As a deer at the sight of man darts away over hills and dale, even so did I dart away. (MN I.79)

The Lomaha∫sa Jåtaka says that the Bodhisattva, living as an Åjœvaka, fled from the sight of men like a deer. The Suttanipåta (39) also admonishes an ascetic to be unfettered like a deer and to wander wherever he wants. The Milindapa∞ho (IV.5.2) agrees: For just as a deer in the forest, O King, wandering in the woods, sleeps wherever he desires, having no home and no dwelling place, so also should the recluse.

In the legend of the hermit Ki∫dama and King Påñ∂u (MBh 1.109), the imitation of the deer is taken to the extreme. During a hunting trip, Påñ∂u shot a buck and a doe while they were copulating. “The buck,” the story goes, “was a powerful ascetic, … the son of a seer, who had been consorting with his wife in the form of a deer” (MBh 1.109.7). Struck by the arrow, the hermit-buck curses the king himself to die in the act of sexual intercourse. “What did it profit you, best of men,” says Ki∫dama, “to kill me, an innocent? Me, a hermit who lives on roots and fruits, wearing the guise of a deer, who always dwells in the forest, seeking serenity? … I am Ki∫dama, a hermit of unequaled austerities. I mated with a doe because I shy away from humans, and as a deer I live with deer in the depths of the forest” (MBh 1.109.24, 26; van Buitenen’s tr.). In verse 7 the doe is depicted as the transformed wife of the hermit, whereas verse 26 seems to indicate that Ki∫dama was copulating with a real doe after assuming the guise of a buck. It appears from these texts that the imitation of the deer consisted of three things: 1. A life of unfettered wandering in the forest; 2. The diet of a deer (possibly also gathering food like a deer); and 3. Fleeing the company of human beings. Forest hermitages, moreover, are depicted as places where deer roam freely. A fascinating episode is described in A†vaghoßa’s Buddhacarita (6.59—62). The Bodhisattva, in need of an ascetic’s dress (kåßåyavastra), encounters a hunter who happened to have one. The hunter gives the dress to the Bodhisattva and remarks that he had used it to get closer to the deer, because in an ascetic’s garb the deer trusted him and did not flee.

96

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

The imitation of the cow resembles that of the deer. Gocårin or govratin, like the m®gacårin, is a class of ascetics.16 In an episode of the Mahåbhårata, Nårada points out to Måtali, Indra’s charioteer, the govratin living in Påtåla. He gives a definiton of such an ascetic: yatratatra†ayo nitya∫ yenakenacid å†ita∫ Ù yenakenacid åcchanna∫ sa govrata ihocyate ÙÙ He is said to observe the vow of a cow who lies down anywhere, feeds on anything, and covers himself with anything whatsoever. MBh 5.97.14 (tr. van Buitenan)

In the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads the imitation of the cow is associated with the Turœyåtœta class of renouncers. This life style is called gomukha (“cow-mouth”),17 gomukhav®tti (“behaving in the manner of a cowmouth”),18 gov®tti (“bhaving like a cow”),19 and gocaryå (“imitating/followiing a cow”).20 Within this context the imitation consists primarily in the way an ascetic obtains and eats his food. This kind of an ascetic does not use a begging bowl but uses his mouth as a recepticle. He probably ate his food without using his hands, picking the food up directly from the ground using his mouth, just like a cow. An oft-cited verse points to this custom: åsyena tu yadåhåra∫ govan m®gayate muniΔ Ù When, like a cow, a sage forages for his food with his mouth.21

The YPra 57.56—57 remarks that this verse refers to the kind of ascetics who are called udarapåtrin, that is, those who use their stomachs as begging bowls. They do not use external begging bowls or even use their cupped hands to receive the food. This close association with the cow may have been influenced also by the growing belief in the sacredness of the cow. The Buddha, for example, says that, while he was practising austerities, he walked on all fours (cåtukuñ∂iko) like an animal. When the cow-herds left for the night, he used to eat the dung of young milch-cows (MN I.79). A similar practice may have been the basis for a class of ascetics known as phenapa (“froth drinkers”).22 It is possible that phena here refers to the foam of water. These ascetics would then resemble those who are See MBh 13.14.39; MN I.387—88. NpvU 177.1—2; 204.4. 18 BSaU 255.4. 19 TurU 243.5—6; PhpU 284.9. 20 NpvU 184.13. 21 See MBh 1.86.17; BDh 3.3.12; Matsya Puråña 40.17; NpvU 182.6; BSaU 268.1; YDhS p. 77. 22 See VkhDh 1.7; MBh 12.325.4 (100); 12.336.14; 13.129.36—38. Some ascetics are also called kßœrapa (“milk drinkers”: MBh 13.14.38—39), and others payobhakßa (“milk consumers”). 16 17

The Beast and the Ascetic

97

said to subsist solely on water.23 One passage of the MBh (5.100.5—6), however, locates the Phenapas around the mythical milk ocean created by the stream of milk issuing from the udder of Surabhi, the divine mother of cows. These ascetics are said to subsist on the foam of that milk ocean. There is, furthermore, an intersting custom of some ascetics that resembles the practice of “froth drinkers”. The Mahåbhårata records the episode of King Parikßit’s encounter with a hermit who “was sitting in a cow pasture, where he fed on the plentiful froth that trickled from the mouths of suckling calves.”24 The same ascetic has a son called ‡®õgin, who was born from a cow (MBh 1.46.2). A life style closely associated with gov®tti is called ajagarav®tti, acting like a python or boa constrictor. Here too the imitation is in the method by which food is obtained. A python lies in wait for its prey and eats animals who happen to cross its path. The noteworthy characteristic of a python’s method is that it does not hunt its prey actively; it does not search for food. It lets the food come to it. Similarly, an ajagarav®tti ascetic does not actively search for food; he does not go from house to house begging. He eats what he obtains without asking (ayåcita), food that someone may give him without being asked. Such an ascetic minimizes his food effort. The Mahåbhårata (12.172.19—34) records a conversation between Prahlåda, the pious king of the demons, and the ascetic Ajagara, whose name is derived from the fact that he followed the ajagarav®tti.25 The ascetic says that he has given up striving. He uses whatever is at hand without discriminating between the good and the bad, the proper and the improper. He eats whatever he gets, good or bad; and if he gets nothing, he goes without food. He sleeps wherever he is, sometimes in costly beds, sometimes on the bare ground. He dresses in tree barks or costly garments, whatever is at hand. In the classification of renouncers, ajagarav®tti is associated with the Avadhüta.26 They are the highest class of ascetics, superior to even the Turœyåtœtas, who follow the gov®tti. In the Buddhist literature the govratins are closely associated with ascetics bearing the name kukkuravratin, those who behave like dogs.27 The Dœgha Nikåya (III.6—7) describes such an ascetic as naked, walking on all fours, and picking up with his mouth food that has been thrown on the ground. The latter practice may also imply scavenging. The Majjihama Nikåya (I.387) records the meeting See ÅpDh 2.23.2. gavå∫ pracareßv åsœna∫ vatsånå∫ mukhaniΔs®tam Ù bhüyiß™ham upyu∞jåna∫ phenam åpibatå∫ paya∫ ÙÙ MBh 1.36.15. See also MBh 1.3.48—49; BDh 3.3.13; MDh 6.31. 25 Ascetics often have animal names. The B®haddevatå (8.67—68) records an ascetic named Kapota (pigeon), while in the MBh (13.95.2, 4 etc.) an ascetic is called ‡unaΔsakha (dog’s friend). 26 See NpvU 175.6; 204.4—5; BSaU 255.6—7. See also Sprockhoff 1976, 127. 27 See the similar classficiation in Vasubandhu, Abhidharmako†a, tr. L. M. Pruden (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), p. 418 23

24

98

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

between the Buddha and two ascetics. The one was named Puñño Ko¬iyaputto, who followed the vow of the cow (govratika). The other was named Seniyo. He was naked and followed the dog vow (kukkuravatika), lying on the ground like a dog and eating what was thrown on the ground. An ascetic’s life is also compared to that of birds and fish. This verse occurs in numerous sources: †akunœnåm ivåkå†e jale våricarasya ca Ù yathå gatir na d®†yate tathå tasya na sa∫†ayaΔ ÙÙ As the course of birds in the air and of fish in the water is not seen, so also, without doubt, is his course.28

The term gati here can mean the final state, namely liberation, that an ascetic is expected to attain. It can also be a reference to the way an ascetic is expected to go about in the world. He leaves no trail. He travels unnoticed and without a destination.29 The Buddha compares the life of a renouncer to that of a bird, because a renouncer is content with sufficient food and clothing, and “withersoever he may go forth, these he takes with him as he goes —just as a bird with his wings, O King, withersoever he may fly, carries his wings with him as he flies” (DN I.71). Clearly, these images are mostly metaphorical. The imitation of birds, however, can move beyong the metaphorical. It is often said to consist of gleaning (u∞cha).30 As birds pick up seeds here and there, so ascetics glean grain and other edibles. These are either what grows in the wild or what is left in the fields after the crops have been harvested. This life style is in a special way associated with pigeons.31 One class of hermits and of holy householders is named kåpotœ or kåpotav®tti, behaving like pigeons. Baudhåyana provides a description of this life style: kåpoteti Ù avåritasthåneßu pathißu vå kßetreßu våpratihatåvakå†eßu vå yatra yatraußadhayo vidyante tatra tatråõgulœbhyåm ekaikåm oßadhim u∞chayitvå sa∫da∫†anåt kapotavad iti kåpotå Ù With respect to Kåpotå —in whatever unfenced area he finds cereal plants, either along roads or in fields or in other places with unrestricted access, he gleans with just two fingers those cereals one by one and eats like a pigeon (kapota); from which is derived the name “Kåpotå”. (BDh 3.2.15) 28 MBh 12.154.28. Variant in MBh 12.174.19. See also MBh 12.261.21; 12.231.23; 12.254.32; ‡a∫kara on VeS 4.2.14. 29 See MBh 12.19.15; 14.46.49. 30 See BDh 3.2.14; VkhDh 1.8; MN II.6—8; MBh 1.81.13; 3.246.3; 12.174.18; 12.231.23— 24;12.262.2; 12.264.2—3; 12.341—353; 13.27.19; 13.129.39; 14.92.7; 14.93.2. 31 See MBh 3.246.4; 13.32.19; 14.93.2; BDh 4.5.27—28; VkhDh 1.8; ViDh 95.11; Kürma Puråña 2.27.23. An interesting inversion of the metaphor occurs in the Mahåbhårata (12.142.34—35) episode where a pigeon tells a fowler that pigeons live like ascetics, because they do not store food.

The Beast and the Ascetic

99

The imitation of fish would seem a rather difficult enterprise. There is, nevertheless, one practice that comes close to living like a fish. It is called udavåsa, dwelling in water.32 The Mahåbhårata (13.50) states that Cyavana lived in water for twelve years. He lay there like a stick without moving. Aquatic animals loved him and fish kissed him with joy. One day fishermen came and cast their nets. When they pulled their nets ashore they saw to their utter amazement Cyavana surrounded by fish. He was covered with moss. His beard and hair had turned green and shell-fish were attached to his body. Imitaton of wild animals is the basis for the classification of ascetics found in A†vaghoßa’s Buddhacarita (7.15—17): u∞chena jœvanti khagå ivånye t®ñåni ke cin m®gavac caranti Ù ke cid bhujaõgaiΔ saha vartayanti valmœkabhütå vanamårutena ÙÙ a†maprayatnårjitav®ttayo ’nye ke cit svadantåpahatånnabhakßåΔ Ù k®två parårtha∫ †rapaña∫ tathånye kurvanti kårya∫ yadi †eßam asti Ù ke cij jalaklinnaja™åkalåpå dviΔ påvaka∫ juhvati mantrapürvam Ù mœnaiΔ sama∫ ke cid apo vigåhya vasanti kürmollikhitaiΔ †arœraiΔ ÙÙ Some live like the birds by what they can pick up from the ground, others graze on grass like the deer, and others pass their time with the snakes, turned into anthills by the forest wind. Some gain their subsistence by laborious pounding with stones, others eat only what has been husked by their own teeth, and some again cook for others and meet their needs on anything that may be left over. Some with their coils of matted hair soaked with water twice offer oblations to Agni with sacred texts; others plunge into the water and dwell with the fishes, their bodies scored by turtles. (Tr. Johnston)

Indian folklore is full of stories with talking animals where the conduct of animals becomes the model for human action exemplified in the Pa∞catantra (Olivelle 1997). In the Buddhist Jåtaka tales the future Buddha is often born as an animal and in that condition becomes the model of courage and virtue. It is, therefore, not surprising that in the Indian ascetic literature animal motifs play an important role. The principle underlying the imitation of animals, however, is rooted in the deeply anti-civilizational ideology of Indian asceticism. I have written elsewhere about the oppositon between village and wilderness presented in the early ascetic writings.33 If “village” is a metonym for civilization and society, then “wilderness” represents the ascetic ideology of rejecting civilized and social living. If civilized humans are the inhabitants of the village, then animals are the idealtypical denizens of the wilderness. Just like living in the wilderness 32

See MBh 13.57.18. See also the Buddhacarita (7.17) passage cited below. 1990; above pp. 43—62.

33 Olivelle

100

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

and the prohibition from entering a village underscore the anti-civilizational direction of the ascetic ideology, so the imitation of animals (whether real or imagined) signals that the ascetic has left human culture, society, and civilized living behind. He has freed himself from the ties that bind him to society and to repeated births, a freedom symolized by his return to the wild state of animals.

7. Deconstruction of the Body in Indian Asceticism*

Asceticism, modern scholarship has often argued, is a cornerstone of Indian religions. It was fashionable not too long ago to contrast Indian religions, with their life-and-world negating tendencies, to the life affirming religions of the west.1 Louis Dumont’s (1960) seminal study, “World Renunciation in Indian Religions,” pointed out the inadequacy of that generalization by showing what Heesterman (1985) has called “the inner conflict of the tradition,” that is, the conflict between world-renouncing and world-affirming ideologies within the history of Indian religious traditions. Dumont’s own emphasis on world renunciation as the dominant and creative force within Indian religious history has been recently subjected to review and correction (Madan 1987). Indeed, Dumont’s structural dichotomy between the renouncer and the man in the world is tenable only at the level of ideal types: the lived reality of both the ascetics and people living in society was much more complex and much less tidy. The more significant point of Dumont’s analysis, in my view, is the dialectical and creative relationship and tension in which the ascetic and the societal dimensions of Indian religions existed and developed both ideologically and in their institutions and practices. This relationship is the point of departure for this paper, which examines the ascetic creation of the human body. But, like most aspects of Indian ascetic ideology and practice, the ascetic creation of the body can be *Originally published in Ascetism, ed. Vincent L. Wimbush and Richard Valantasis, pp. 188—210. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995 1 Contrasting the Indian forms of asceticism to the Hellenistic, which according to him originated within specific historical circumstances, Albert Schweitzer (1960, 19) echoes a commonly held, though clearly erroneous, perception: “In the thought of India, on the other hand, world and life negation does not originate in a similar experience. It is there from the very beginning, self-originated, born as it were in a cloudless sky.”

102

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

understood adequately only within its structural relationship to the human body as social creation. Thus, at least for heuristic purposes, I think it is useful to consider the ascetic creation as a deconstruction2 of the socially created body. This approach is justified also by the native theological understanding of renunciatory asceticism at least with the Brahmanical tradition, which views asceticism as an antithetical category defined more by its negation of social structures than by any internal structure or property of its own.3 Given recent scholarship in widely different disciplines, it is unnecessary to belabor the major assumption of this paper: the human body as culturally created and perceived stands as the primary symbol of the social body, the body politic. Bodily appearance, movements, and functions—from dress, hair, food, and toilet to excrement, sexual fluids, and menstrual discharge—are given culturally and socially determined meanings (Mauss 1973; Turner 1984). The ascetic deconstruction of the body has to be located, therefore, within the socially constructed correspondence between the two bodies —the physical and the social— well expressed by Mary Douglas (1982, 65): The social body constrains the way the physical body is perceived. The physical experience of the body, always modified by the social categories through which it is known, sustains a particular view of society. There is a continual exchange of meanings between the two kinds of bodily experience so that each reinforces the categories of the other. As a result of this interaction the body itself is a highly restricted medium of expression. The forms it adopts in movement and repose express social pressures in manifold ways. The care that is given to it, in grooming, feeding and therapy, the theories about what it needs in the way of sleep and exercise, about the stages it should go through, the pains it can stand, its span of life, all the cultural categories in which it is perceived, must correlate closely with the categories in which society is seen in so far as these also draw upon the same culturally processed idea of the body.

One of the arguments of this paper will be that the ascetic deconstruction of the body also carries implicit meanings with regard to society and socially sanctioned roles and values. I will focus here on four major themes in the ascetic deconstruction of the body: 1. The physical body; 2. Sexuality; 3. Food; and 4. Hair. Body without Boundaries If, with Mary Douglas (1984), we define dirt as matter out of place, then it seems that, at least as far as the social perception of the 2 I do not attach an overly technical meaning to this term, such as that found in literary theory. My use of the term is intended to show that the ascetic construction of the body can be understood adequately only in its negative and thus deconstructing relationship to “the socially constructed body. 3 For a discussion of this, see Olivelle 1975; above pp. 63—70.

Deconstruction of the Body

103

human body is concerned, dirt gathers predominantly on its margins and in a special way at the openings that lets the inside of the body meet the outside both by letting bodily excreta and fluids flow out and by permitting outside elements—especially food and water—to come inside. The protection of these boundaries has been a major preoccupation of most traditional religions, and the Indian are no exception. Especially within the Brahmanical tradition, maintaining the purity of the body was and continues to be a major element of ritual and morality. Mary Douglas (1982) again has argued, convincingly I believe, that anxiety about bodily margins and the preoccupation with keeping them clean express anxieties about social integrity and concern for maintaining social order. This anxiety and the resultant preoccupation with bodily purity increase with the increase in the perceived threat to the integrity of the social body. As throughout their history the Israelites were a minority threatened with the loss of group identity, so each Hindu caste — especially the Brahmins— was a minority vis-à-vis the larger society. Both the Jews and the Brahmins show a similar anxiety about the body and bodily fluids. The Brahmin anxiety has to varying degrees pervaded other castes of Indian society.4 It is, nevertheless, the Brahmanical ideology and practice that is the counterpoint for much of ascetic rhetoric and behavior. In Brahmanical ideology, then, the body is by definition a pure structure constantly threatened at its boundaries with impurity both through the discharge of bodily fluids and excrement, and from contact with impure substances and individuals (Olivelle 2005b, 217— 245). There are thus minute prescriptions regarding the maintenance of bodily purity: when and how to bathe; how to purify after eating, defecating, and urinating, after sexual intercourse and menstruation, after touching anything or anybody impure; what to eat; from whom to accept food; with whom one can have sexual, social, or physical contact; and so on. The ascetic deconstruction begins with the body itself. Far from being something intrinsically pure that is under the constant threat of impurity, ascetic discourse presents the body as impure in its very essence, the source indeed of all pollution. Here, for example, is a tongue-in-cheek parody of the Brahmanical effort at maintaining purity by constant bathing: Made with its mother’s and father’s filth, this body dies soon after it is born. It is a filthy house of joy and grief. When it is touched a bath is ordained. 4 Even though modern scholarship has shown that Brahmanical perceptions and attitudes, especially in matters of ritual purity, do not necessarily reflect those of Indian society as a whole (Carman and Marglin 1985), nevertheless Brahmanical customs and ideas, especially when codified in “sacred” texts, became often the standard for others to imitate and emulate.

104

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

By its very nature, foul secretions continuously ooze out from its nine openings. It smells foul and it contains awful filth. When it is touched a bath is ordained. Through its mother the body is impure at birth; in birth-impurity it is born. It is impure also through death. When it is touched a bath is ordained.5

Society itself views the sexual act as impure and requires the couple to bathe after it to restore purity to their bodies. The ascetic deconstruction shows the futility of this, since the body itself is created from that impure act. The body is thus intrinsically and at its very source impure, molded out of its parents’ filthy sexual fluids. The birth of a child in Brahmanical practice, likewise, results in impurity and requires a bath. So does death. But the body cannot be purified from those events, argues the ascetic, because they are not events external to the body, but constitute its very essence. The ascetic author concludes that after touching the body one must surely bathe. But of course that is impossible, because one is constantly in touch with one’s body. That is the dilemma of an embodied being. The deconstruction thus begins with familiar concepts, but subverts their meanings and demonstrates their inadequacy. Lord, this body is produced just by sexual intercourse and is devoid of consciousness; it is a veritable hell. Born through the urinary canal, it is built with bones, plastered with flesh, and covered with skin. It is filled with feces, urine, wind, bile, phlegm, marrow, fat, serum, and many other kinds of filth. In such a body do I live; you are my refuge.6

This prayer of an ascetic points out several significant aspects of the ascetic deconstruction. The body is impure in its very creation, produced, as it is, by sexual intercourse and born through the urinary canal. Note the constant association of the body with excrement and bodily discharges. The body is also dissociated from consciousness, the familiar dicotomy between body and spirit. Detached from the spirit, the body—and, I believe, society of which it is the symbol—is devalued as worthless. Indeed, we find this separation of consciousness from the body in several Indian theologies with deep ascetic roots, such as Så∫khya, Yoga, Jainism, and Advaita Vedånta. Even in Buddhism, which regards consciousness as one of the five elements that constitute an individual in sa∫såric existence, 5 jåta∫ m®tam ida∫ deha∫ måtåpit®malåtmakam Ù sukhaduΔkhålayåmedhya∫ sp®ß™vå snåna∫ vidhœyate ÙÙ navadvåramalasråva∫ sadåkåle svabhåvajam Ù durgandha∫ durmalopeta∫ sp®ß™vå snåna∫ vidhœyate ÙÙ måtrå sütakasa∫bandha∫ sütake sa ha jåyate Ù m®tasütakaja∫ deha∫ sp®ß™vå snåna∫ vidhœyate ÙÙ MaiU 113—14. 6 bhagavan †arœram ida∫ maithunåd evodbhüta∫ sa∫vidapeta∫ niraya eva mütradvåreña nißkråntam asthibhi† cita∫ må∫senånulipta∫ carmañåvabaddha∫ viñmütravåtapittakaphamajjåmedovasåbhir anyai† ca malair bahubhiΔ paripürñam Ù etåd®†e †arœre vartamånasya bhava∫s tva∫ no gatir iti Ù MaiU 108.

Deconstruction of the Body

105

that consciousness, together with the other bodily properties, is carefully separated from the ultimate dimension of Nirvåña, however that may be defined. Further, in the above passage the body is compared implicitly to a house, an image we encounter frequently and more explicitly in ascetic literature. The most significant aspect of this analogy is the contents of this house: feces, urine, phlegm, fat, and the like—the very substances that Brahmanical practice regards as causing bodily impurity. If the body itself consists of these substances, how can it be made pure? What can purify the very source of impurity? These impurities do not exist at the boundaries of the body but at its very heart. What purpose is there in protecting the boundaries when the danger is present within? A medieval work compares the body explicitly to a house full of filth. The purpose of this comparison is to instill a sense of loathing towards the body and a desire to be rid of it. Let him abandon this impermanent dwelling place of the elements. It has beams of bones tied with tendons. It is plastered with flesh and blood and thatched with skin. It is foul-smelling, filled with feces and urine, and infested with old-age and grief. Covered with dust and harassed by pain, it is the abode of disease. If a man finds joy in the body—a heap of flesh, blood, pus, feces, urine, tendons, marrow, and bones—that fool will find joy even in hell.7 Those who take delight in this collection of skin, flesh, blood, tendons, marrow, fat, and bones, stinking with feces and urine—what difference is there between them and worms?8

These passages invite the listener to look upon the body not as a whole—an illusory perspective that presents the body as beautiful and pure—but as it truly is when it is dissolved into its constituent parts. When they are found separately, society considers them to be impure. People are polluted when they touch human bones, flesh, blood, pus, and excrement. How then can the body be pure or beautiful when it contains and consists of these very substances? The body is thus likened to a rubbish heap or to a putrefying corpse inhabited by worms. People who find delight in their own bodies and those of others are thus likened to worms; both revel in putrid matter and excrement. The very boundary of the body that people take such great care in keeping pure consists of skin. Now dead skin is an extremely polluting 7 asthisthüña∫ snåyubaddha∫ må∫sa†oñitalepitam Ù carmåvabaddha∫ durgandhi pürña∫ mütrapurœßayoΔ ÙÙ jarå†okasamåviß™a∫ rogåyatanam åturam Ù rajasvalam anitya∫ ca bhütåvåsam ima∫ tyajet ÙÙ må∫sås®kpüyaviñmütrasnåyumajjåsthisa∫hatau ÙÙ dehe cet prœtimån mü∂ho bhavitå narake ’pi saΔ ÙÙ NpvU 144. The first two verses also occurs in MDh 6.76—77. 8 tvaõmå∫sarudhirasnåyumajjåmedo’sthisa∫hatau Ù viñmütrapüye ramatå∫ krimœñå∫ kiyad antaram ÙÙ NpvU 160.

106

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

substance; tanners and leather workers in India belong to a very low caste, and their very touch pollutes a person of an upper caste. But, the ascetic argues, our body is covered with precisely that skin, which should make us even more impure than an untouchable tanner! The parallel between body and house is interesting as much for its deconstruction of the body and the house, both nearly universal symbols of society, as for its resonance with the ascetic practice of leaving home and family and leading a homeless and wandering life. The conception of the house as a body and the body as a house is not confined to the Hindu ascetic traditions. The Buddhist text Visuddhimagga, for example, states: Just as when a space is enclosed by timbers, creepers, grass and clay, it is called a “house”, so when a space is enclosed by bones, sinews, flesh and skin, it comes to be called “body”.9

This correlation between the images of house and body is not the invention, however, of the ascetic traditions. Indian culture in general has conceived of the building of a temple or a house not as a construction project but as a conception leading to a birth (Beck 1976). Daniels (1984) has described how in modern South India a house is conceived as a body, with the mouth and face in the front, the belly (kitchen) at the center, and the excretory openings at the back. Indians attend meticulously to maintaining the purity of both their bodies and their houses.10 This well-established correlation permits the ascetic to deconstruct both: the body is like a house full of filth and the house itself contains filthy bodies and hides filthy activities, especially sex. The same Sanskrit word, g®ha, means both home and house. It conveys the same sense of warmth and security to Indian listeners as it does to the western, a sense admirably captured by Gaston Bachelard in The Poetics of Space: A house constitutes a body of images that give mankind proofs or illusions of stability. We are constantly re-imagining its reality: to distinguish all these images would be to describe the soul of the house; it would mean developing a veritable psychology of the house. (Bachelard 1964, 17)

Ascetic discourse attempts to reverse this feeling by focusing on the possibility that this very womb of comfort, security, and stability may become the source of fear, danger, and death, as when a house is on fire or habors a snake. I will examine in the third section of this paper a Buddhist myth of origins that has counterparts also in the Hindu mythological complex, a myth that depicts the gradual deterioration of the world set in 9Visuddhimagga XVIII.28, cited from Collins 1982, 167. For a detailed discussion of “house imagery” in the Buddhist tradition, see Collins 1982, 165—76. 10 Mary Douglas (1982, 158) has described a similar conception of the home in working class British families.

Deconstruction of the Body

107

motion by, of all things, eating food.11 Food causes, among other things, the differentiation of sexes. When men and women emerged as sexually distinct individuals, some began to engage in sexual intercourse. Seeing this, others were scandalized and threw dirt at those depraved beings. The latter then built houses to hide their sexual activities! Sexually differentiated bodies, the lust arising out of that differentiation, the sexual acts resulting from lust, and houses where those acts take place are neatly brought together here. From the ascetic perspective, therefore, all of them have negative connotations. A house carried a deeply negative value in the Indian ascetic tradition of wandering mendicants. Departure from home to the homeless state was the defining element of this form of asceticism within Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jain traditions. “He leaves home for the homeless state” (agårasmå anagåriya∫ pabbajati) is a stock phrase in the Påli canon. The words pravrajati (“he goes forth” or “he departs”) and pravrajyå (“going forth”) are used in all these traditions as technical terms for the rite for becoming an ascetic. These terms refer to the ascetic’s initial departure from home to the homeless state. The absence of a permanent residence has remained—at least in theory, ritual, and legal fiction, but occasionally also in practice—a defining element of mendicant asceticism throughout its history, even after many of these ascetic traditions had adopted monastic forms of life. So when the ascetic traditions compare a body to a house, it is a telling comparison. The stability and security of a house is just as illusory as that of a body. A house represents all that is evil in social living: lust, sex, attachment, and prolongation of sa∫såric life. An ascetic has rejected it and freed himself from home. But he carries a second home with him, and that is his own body. It is this more intimate “house” toward which the rhetoric of deconstruction is directed so as to elicit in the ascetic a sense of repugnance toward the body, and implicitly towards society of which it is a symbol. We saw how ascetic literature dwells on bodily components to illustrate the radical impurity of the body. Another strategy is to contemplate the body as bereft of the conscious life-giving spirit. Brahmanical ascetics are frequently encouraged to contemplate their body as a corpse.12 Buddhist meditative practice also adopts the technique of deconstructing the body by mentally dissecting it and by seeing it as a lifeless corpse. The Visuddhimagga (Ch. 6) advises Buddhist monks to meditate on a corpse in various stages of dismemberment and putrefaction: swollen, discolored, festering, cut up, mangled, dismembered, bloody, filled with worms, and finally a skeleton. In the meditative technique of “mindfulness” (satipa™™håna), one contemplates, among other things, one’s own body. “This contemplation opens,” Nyanaponika Thera (1962, 65) comments, 11 12

See Olivelle 1991; above pp. 71—89. PhU 48; NpvU 153, 175, 201.

108

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

as it were with a scalpel, the skin of this body of ours, and exposes to view what is hidden under it. This mental dissection dissolves the vaguely held notion of the oneness of the body, by pointing to its various parts; it removes the delusion of the body’s beauty, by revealing its impurity. When visualizing the body as a walking skeleton loosely covered by flesh and skin, or seeing it as a conglomeration of its various strangely-shaped parts, one will feel little inclination to identify oneself with one’s so-called “own” body, or to desire that of another being.

The Mahåsatipa™™håna Sutta of the Påli canon, the basic text on which the Theravåda meditative practice is based, echoes the Brahmanical texts in explaining the reality of the human body. And again, monks, a monk reflects upon this very body, from the soles of his feet up and from the crown of his head down, enclosed by the skin and full of impurities, thinking thus: “There are in this body: hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, gorge, faeces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, solid fat, liquid fat, saliva, mucus, synovic fluid, urine.”13

The body, therefore, is not a single bounded reality, whose boundaries are threatened with contamination and need to be carefully protected. In reality, it is simply an aggregate of substances that are in themselves impure and loathsome. These substances are contained in a bag of skin with nine openings out of which they continuously ooze out. And we call it our body! Only one kind of attitude and feeling is appropriate with regard to such a thing: a feeling of disgust accompanied by a desire to be rid of it. 7.1. Sexuality and Procreation Two activities constitute the very heart of Vedic theology and religion: sacrifice and procreation (Olivelle 1993, 35—55). Only a married man accompanied by his lawful wife could legitimately undertake either of these activities. Marriage and family constituted, therefore, the foundation as much of Vedic religion as of Vedic society. Creation itself is often depicted as an act of procreation by the creator god Prajåpati, and the working of the sacrifice is likened to the procreative process. Sacrifice, creation, and procreation are all intertwined in the images and thought of Vedic theology. Immortality itself, Vedic texts argue, is dependent on procreation. A ¥gVedic verse (5.4.10) contains this prayer: “Through offspring, O Agni, may we attain immortality.” The TB (1.5.5.6) puts it in a nutshell: “In your offspring you are born again; that, O mortal, is your immortality.” The importance of marriage and the obligation to father a son are central and recurrent themes of Brahmanical theology. 13

Cited from the translation of Nyanaponika Thera, 1962, 119.

Deconstruction of the Body

109

A full half of one’s self is one’s wife. As long as one does not obtain a wife, therefore, for so long one is not reborn and remains incomplete. As soon as he obtains a wife, however, he is reborn and becomes complete. (‡B 5.2.1.10)

A man is reborn in the wife when he deposits his semen in her and she conceives a son. One of the most eloquent statements on the importance of offspring in general and of sons in particular is found in the Aitareya Bråhmaña (7.13): A debt14 he pays in him, and immortality he gains; The father who sees the face of his son born and alive. Greater than the delights that earth, fire, and water bring to living beings, is a father’s delight in his son. By means of sons have fathers ever crossed over the mighty darkness; For one is born from oneself a ferry laden with food. What is the use of dirt and deer skin? What profit in beard and austerity?15 Seek a son, O Brahmin; He is the world free of blame. Food is life, clothes protect. Gold is for beauty, cattle for marriage. The wife is a friend, a daughter brings grief. But a son is a light in the highest heaven. The husband enters the wife; becoming an embryo he enters the mother. Becoming in her a new man again, he is born in the tenth month. A wife is called wife,16 because in her he is born again. 14 This refers to the Vedic doctrine of debts with which humans are born and which they must pay during their lifetime. The classical doctrine of debts is spelled out in the TS 6.3.10.5: “A Brahmin, at his very birth, is born with a triple debt —of studentship to the seers, of sacrifice to the gods, of offspring to the fathers. He is, indeed, free from debt, who has a son, is a sacrificer, and who has lived as a student.” See Olivelle 1993, 46—55; Malamoud 1980. 15 This appears to be a reference to the ascetics who rejected marriage and procreation, and lived celibate lives in the forest. 16 This is a play on jåyå, the Sanskrit word for wife, which is derived from a verbal root meaning “to beget.” So, a wife’s “wifehood” consists in begetting a son for her husband.

110

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

He is productive, she’s productive, for the seed is placed in her. The gods and the seers brought to her great luster. The gods said to men: “She is your mother again.” “A sonless man has no world;” all the beasts know this. Therefore a son mounts even his mother and sister. This is the broad and easy path along which travel men with sons, free from sorrow; Beasts and birds see it; so they copulate even with their mothers.17

The son, therefore, is the father reborn; in him and his descendants the father continues to live, and through them he attains immortality. A classical Indian law book puts it this way: He wins the worlds through a son, attains eternal life through a grandson, and climbs to the very summit of heaven through his son’s grandson. By fathering a virtuous son a man rescues himself. A man who obtains a virtuous son rescues seven generations after him and seven generations before him —that is, six others with himself as the seventh— from sin and danger. So a man should work hard at fathering offspring.18

In sharp contrast to this construction of human sexuality stands the ideal of celibacy in Indian asceticism. I want to focus here on just two aspects of the ascetic deconstruction of sexuality: the son and the female body. The first is the central element of the Vedic theology of sexuality. The second is the object of male desire, and the subject of poetic imagination. Within the ideology of rebirth, karmic retribution, and final liberation (mokßa) which emerged as the Vedic period came to a close 17 ®ñam asmin sa∫nayaty am®tatva∫ ca gacchati Ù pitå putrasya jåtasya pa†yec cej jœvato mukham ÙÙ yåvantaΔ p®thivyå∫ bhogå yåvanto jåtavedasi Ù yåvanto apsu pråñinå∫ bhüyån putre pitus tataΔ ÙÙ †a†vat putreña pitaro ’tyåyan bahula∫ tamaΔ Ù åtmå hi jaj∞a åtmanaΔ sa iråvaty atitåriñœ ÙÙ ki∫ nu mala∫ kim ajina∫ kim u †ma†rüñi ki∫ tapaΔ Ù putra∫ bråhmaña icchadhva∫ sa vai loko ’vadåvadaΔ ÙÙ anna∫ ha pråñaΔ †araña∫ sa våso rüpa∫ hirañya∫ pa†avo vivåhåΔ Ù sakhå ha jåyå k®paña∫ ha duhitå jyotir ha putraΔ parame vyoman ÙÙ patir jåyå∫ pravi†ati garbho bhütvå sa måtaram Ù tasyå∫ punar navo bhütvå da†ame måsi jåyate ÙÙ taj jåyå jåyå bhavati yad asyå∫ jåyate punaΔ Ù åbhütir eßå bhütir bœjam etan nidhœyate ÙÙ devå† caitåm ®ßaya† ca tejaΔ samabharan mahat Ù devå manußyån abruvann eßå vo jananœ punaΔ ÙÙ nåputrasya loko ‘stœti pa†avo viduh Ù tasmåt putro måtara∫ svasåra∫ cådhirohati ÙÙ esa panthå urugaΔ su†evo ya∫ putriña åkramante vi†okåΔ Ù ta∫ pa†yanti pa†avo vayå∫si ca tasmåt te måtråpi mithunœ bhavanti ÙÙ 18 putreña lokå∞ jayati pautreñånantyam a†nute Ù atha putrasya pautreña nåkam evådhirohati ÙÙ satputram utpådyåtmåna∫ tårayati Ù saptåvarån sapta pürvån ßa∂anyån åtmasaptamån Ù satputram adhigacchånas tårayaty enaso bhayåt ÙÙ tasmåd yatnavån prajåm utpådayet ÙÙ BDh 2.16.6, 8, 9, 11.

Deconstruction of the Body

111

(around the fifth century BCE), the son is not viewed either as assuring bliss after death or as securing immortality for the father. The son and the sexual lust inherent in fathering offspring are regarded instead as two of the main sources of desire and attachment that keep people bound to the rounds of birth and death. An early Upanißadic passage states that the wise give up all desires, including the desire for a son, and live a life of celibacy as wandering mendicants.19 Sons and sacrifices may secure heavenly worlds. But these are temporary joys that will come to an end. The world that the ascetic seeks is his own self (åtman), and no person other than himself can secure it for him. The ascetic deconstruction of the son also depicts him as a source of constant pain and headaches for the father rather than a source of solace here and hereafter. An early Buddhist text presents Måra, the god of death and evil, as upholding the traditional values. “A father (puttimå: lit. “a man with sons”) rejoices in his sons,” says Måra. To which the Buddha replies: “A father grieves on account of his sons.”20 The Buddha does not spell out how a son brings grief to his father. One sure way, however, is the attachment a father feels towards his son, an attachment that will prolong his sa∫såric life of suffering. Ascetic literature identifies this attachment as one of the primary links to the world that an ascetic must sever in order to seek personal liberation. Verses cited in several medieval works from the Brahmanical tradition give other and more immediate reasons for avoiding marriage and sons. A son, when he is not conceived, long torments the parents. When conceived, he causes pain by miscarriage or in delivery. When he is born one has to contend with the influence of evil planets, illnesses, and the like. When he is young he takes to mischief. Even after he has undergone Vedic initiation, he may not learn, and should he become learned he may not get married. As a young man he may commit adultery and the like. When he has a family he may become penniless. If he is rich then he may die. There is no end to the suffering caused by a son.21

Apart from the ideological battle regarding the religious importance of a son, the ascetic traditions had a more immediate concern regarding human sexuality: sexual instincts do not die merely because a man has cut his family ties and become an ascetic. In the fantasy world of the ascetic the female body must have occupied a prominent place, judging from the frequent allusions to the loathsome nature of a woman’s body and to the dangers that women pose. Misogynous attitudes and statements, of course, are not limited to ascetic literature; 19

BU 3.5.1; 4.4.22. Suttanipåta, 33—34. 21 alabhyamånas tanayaΔ pitarau kle†ayec ciram Ù labdho ’pi garbhapåtena prasavena ca bådhyate ÙÙ jåtasya graharogådi kumårasya ca mürkhatå Ù upanœte ’py avidyatvam anudvåha† ca pañ∂ite ÙÙ puna† ca paradårådi dåridrya∫ ca ku™umbinaΔ Ù pitror duΔkhasya nåsty anto dhanœ cen mriyate tadå ÙÙ Vidyårañya, Pa∞cada†œ, 12.65—67; YU 316—317. 20

112

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

they are found in most Brahmanical texts. In ascetic works, however, the tone is harsher and the intent is not just mistrust but total abhorrence of the female species. “A man becomes intoxicated,” one ascetic text declares, “by seeing a young woman just as much as by drinking liquor. Therefore, a man should avoid from afar a woman, the mere sight of whom is poison.”22 The perfect ascetic may be like an eunuch, “who remains the same when he sees a sixteen-year-old young lady, as when he sees a newborn girl or a hundred-year-old woman,”23 but most ascetics are undoubtedly moved by the youthful female body. This internal attraction is often externalized and projected onto the object of desire in ascetic texts: women are depicted as evil temptresses who want to entrap the hapless ascetic. With stylish hair and painted eyes, hard to touch but pleasing to the eye, women are like the flame of sin and burn a man like straw. Burning from afar, sweet yet bitter, women indeed are the fuel of hellfire, both lovely and cruel. Foolish women are the nets spread out by the fowler called Kåma,24 binding the limbs of men as if they were birds. A woman is the bait on the fishhook tied to the line of evil tendencies for men who are like fish in the pond of birth, wading in the mud of the mind.25

Liquor intoxicates when it is drunk, fire burns when it is touched, snakes kill when they bite, but women do all that by their mere sight! India may be the land of ascetics, but it is also home to some of the best and most explicit erotic sculpture, art, and literature the world has known. Cultured courtesans occupied a place of honor in ancient Indian society. Erotic love and sexual techniques became the subject of specialized inquiry in texts such as the Kåmasütra long before the advent of Masters and Johnson. This “worldly” tradition of artistic expression saw the female body as the epitome of beauty and the source of both erotic and aesthetic joy. Sanskrit belles-lettres dwell on the beauty of the female body, describing tenderly the charm of a woman’s eyes, lips, hair, breasts, hips, and so forth. The poet Bilhåna reminisces longingly on the beauty of his lover: 22 mådyati pramadå∫ d®ß™vå surå∫ pœtvå ca mådyati Ù tasmåd d®ß™avißå∫ nårœ∫ dürataΔ parivarjayet ÙÙ NpvU 196. 23 adyajåtå∫ yathå nårœ∫ tathå ßo∂a†avårßikœm Ù †atavarßå∫ ca yo d®ß™vå nirvikåraΔ sa ßañ∂akaΔ ÙÙ NpvU 147. 24 The term means both lust and the god of love. 25 ke†akajjaladhåriñyo duΔspar†å locanapriyåΔ Ù dußk®tågni†ikhå nåryo dahanti t®ñavan naram ÙÙ jvalitå atidüre ’pi saraså api nœrasåΔ Ù striyo hi narakågnœnåm indhana∫ cårudåruñam ÙÙ kåmanåmnå kiråtena vikœrñå mugdhacetasaΔ Ù nåryo naravihaõgånåm aõgabandhanavåguråΔ ÙÙ janmapalvalamatsyånå∫ cittakardamacåriñåm Ù pu∫så∫ durvåsanårajjur nårœ ba∂i†apiñ∂ikå ÙÙ Yogavåsiß™ha, 1.21.11, 12, 18, 20; YU 315—16.

Deconstruction of the Body

113

Even now, if I see her again, her full moon face, lush new youth, swollen breasts, passion’s glow, body burned by fire from love’s arrows— I’ll quickly cool her limbs! Even now, if I see her again, a lotus-eyed girl weary from bearing her own heavy breasts— I’ll crush her in my arms and drink her mouth like a madman, a bee insatiably drinking a lotus! Even now, I remember her in love— her body weak with fatigue, swarms of curling hair falling on pale cheeks, trying to hide the secret of her guilt. Her soft arms clung like vines on my neck.26

And the greatest of Indian poets, Kålidåsa, paints this picture of ‡akuntalå, the forest girl of heavenly beauty: With rounded breasts concealed by cloth of bark fastened at the shoulder in a fine knot, her youthful form enfolded like a flower in its pale leafy sheath unfolds not its glory. Her lower lip has the rich sheen of young shoots, her arms the very grace of tender twining stems; her limbs enchanting as a lovely flower glow with the radiance of magical youth.27

Even Bhart®hari, in his ode to renunciation, admits: Renunciation of worldly attachments is only the talk of scholars, whose mouths are wordy with wisdom. Who can really forsake the hips of beautiful women bound with girdles of ruby jewels?28 26

Bilhåña’s Caurapa∞cå†ikå. From the translation of Miller 1990, 105—06. Translation from Chandra Rajan, Kålidåsa: The Loom of Time (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1989), p. 177. 28 Miller 1990, 82. 27

114

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Ascetic deconstruction seeks to dispel this male fascination with and fantasy about the female body by analyzing what it regards as the reality behind its imagined beauty. What, pray, is the beauty of a woman, who is a puppet of flesh furnished with tendons, bones, and joints, within a cage of limbs moved by a machine? Examine her eyes after separating the skin, the flesh, the blood, the tears, and the fluid, and see if there is any charm. Why are you bewitched in vain? The same breast of a girl, on which we see the brilliant splendor of a pearl necklace comparable to the swift waters of the Ganges rippling down the slopes of mount Meru, is in time eaten with relish by dogs in remote cemeteries as if it were a little morsel of food.29

The author here resorts to surgical dissection to uncover the hidden beauty of the female eye, so lovingly described by poets, and finds only blood, skin, veins, and other impurities. Of beauty there is none. Another text focuses directly on the final object of sexual passion: the vagina. Why, the author wonders, are people enamored by this opening of flesh that is foul smelling and resembles a festering wound? Even though a woman’s private parts are not different from a deep and festering ulcer, men generally deceive themselves by imagining them to be different. I salute those who take delight in a piece of skin split in two scented by the breaking of the wind! What could be more rash?30

A significant aspect of the ascetic deconstruction of the body in general and of the female body in particular is the association of the body or of particular parts of the body, such as the vagina, with urine and excrement. Within the context of Brahmanical culture which considered bodily excreta as extremely defiling, this association evokes feelings of disgust, precisely the feelings that ascetics are expected to have with regard to the body. Such attitudes with regard to the female body are not confined to Brahmanical asceticism. I want to mention just one example from the Jain ascetic tradition. Padmanabh Jaini (1991) has recently studied a 29 må∫sapå∞cålikåyås tu yantralole ’õgapa∞jare Ù snåyvasthigranthi†ålinyåΔ striyåΔ kim iva †obhanam ÙÙ tvaõmå∫saraktabåßpåmbu p®thak k®två vilocanam Ù samålokya ramya∫ cet ki∫ mudhå parimuhyasi ÙÙ meru†®õgata™ollåsigaõgåjalarayopamå Ù d®ß™vå yasmin stane muktåhårasyollåsa†ålitå ÙÙ †ma†åneßu diganteßu sa iva lalanåstanaΔ Ù †vabhir åsvådyate kåle laghupiñ∂a ivåndhasaΔ ÙÙ Yogavåsiß™ha, 1.21.1—2, 5—6. This chapter of the Yogavåsiß™ha contains a detailed deconstruction of the female body. See also YU 315. 30 strœñåm avåcyade†asya klinnanå∂œvrañasya ca Ù abhede ’pi manobhedåj janaΔ pråyeña va∞cate ÙÙ carmakhañ∂a∫ dvidhå bhinnam apånodgåradhüpitam Ù ye ramanti namas tebhyaΔ såhasa∫ kim ataΔ param ÙÙ NpvU 160.

Deconstruction of the Body

115

long-standing Jain controversy regarding the possibility of women achieving liberation (strœmokßa). One argument against such a possibility is of interest to our study. The Digambara Jains who reject the possibility of female liberation present two reasons. First, ascetic nudity is essential for liberation, but women cannot go naked. Second, women cannot be ordained ascetics, because women’s bodies produce small creatures. These creatures are killed when women purify themselves. Thus it is impossible for women to observe the fundamental Jain vow of non-injury (ahi∫så). (A nun) eats only one meal a day and wears a single piece of cloth. According to the Teaching of the Jina, a person wearing clothes cannot attain mokßa even if he be a Tœrthaõkara. The path of mokßa consists of nudity; all other paths are wrong paths. In the genital organs of women, in between their breasts, in their navels, and in the armpits, it is said (in the scriptures that) there are very subtle living beings. How can there be the mendicant ordination for them (since they must violate the vow of ahi∫så)? Women have no purity of mind; they are by nature fickle-minded. They have menstrual flows. (Therefore) there is no meditation for them free from anxiety.31

Although this conception of women relates to a theological debate, it parallels the Brahmanical conceptions examined earlier. The reason for the inferiority of women is the very constitution of their bodies which are subject to menstrual flows, which harbor living creatures, and which cannot be revealed naked in public. 7.2. Food Because I have written a longer article on this topic recently,32 I will here summarize some of the observations I made there. In few other cultures does food play as central a role in cosmological speculations, ritual practice, and social transactions as in India (Khare 1976; Marriott 1968). Not only is the creative act closely associated with the creation of food in Brahmanical myths and theology, but even the creator god Prajåpati is often depicted as food. The whole of creation consists of food and eaters of food; but because food is food only when it is eaten, and the eater in its turn becomes the eaten, one can equate reality with food. The centrality of food is ancient Indian cosmology is highlighted in the speculations regarding the cycle of beings. Food when eaten becomes semen, and from semen arises a person. Indeed, in some Upanißadic speculations food itself is a dead person trans31The Sütrapråbh®ta of Digambara Åcårya Kundakunda (circa 150 CE), 5—8. Translation taken from Jaini 1991, 35. 32 Olivelle 1991; see above, pp. 71—89.

116

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

formed: when he is cremated, the dead person becomes smoke, rises to the sky, and through a complicated process, the details of which we do not have the time to investigate, returns as rain, which is transformed into plants, food, and finally into semen and a new birth.33 The continued existence of the universe depends, moreover, on ritual food transactions between gods and humans. It is well known that every Indian ritual from the earliest Vedic sacrifices to the recent devotional liturgies involves offering food to the gods (Khare 1992). Manu puts it plainly: An oblation duly consigned to the fire reaches the sun; from the sun comes rain; and from rain food; and from food, offspring.34

This then is the ritual food chain: sacrifice, rain, plants, food, procreation. The ritual use of food underscores both its centrality at the cosmic and social levels and its inherently transactional nature. Food is the central element of a cosmic transaction that maintains both the social and the physical cosmos. Food becomes plentiful only when it is shared. The didactic literature admonishes people not to cook for themselves alone; such food becomes poison. Food personified addresses the eater: Without giving me to ancestors, gods, dependents, guests, and friends, when a man in his folly eats what has been cooked, he eats poison —I eat him and I am his death.35

Indian food transactions include all known beings: gods, ancestors, various divine and demonic beings, and human guests and beggars. The interdependence of all beings within the cosmic chain is expressed in this socio-ritual-cosmic food transaction. The cosmos, indeed, is a giant food cycle (Khare 1976). The regulation and restriction of food transactions between humans, moreover, is at the root of social stratification and caste distinctions (Marriott 1968). Historical and textual studies as well as substantial ethnographic research show that Hindu culture in India has preserved, throughout its history, a set of core cultural assumptions concerning the link between human society, food transactions, and divinity. These assumptions are: that the interdependence of men and gods depends on ritual transactions of food between them; that the distinctiveness of various 33 See BU 6.2.15—16; CU 5.10. For perhaps the most eloquent praise of food as the primary cosmological principle, see the TU 2.1—2; 3.7—10. 34 agnau pråståhutiΔ samyag ådityam upatiß™hate Ù ådityåj jåyate v®ß™ir v®ß™er anna∫ tataΔ prajåΔ ÙÙ MDh 3.76. 35 yo måm adatvå pit®devatåbhyo bh®tyåtithœnå∫ ca suh®jjanasya Ù sa∫pannam a†nan vißam atti mohåt tad admy aha∫ tasya ca m®tur asmi ÙÙ BDh 2.5.18.

Deconstruction of the Body

117

groups in Hindu society as well as the relationship between such groups is ritually constructed in such food transactions with the gods; and lastly, that the ritual concentration and redistribution of food is a critical mechanism for the formation of social groups and the articulation of leadership. (Breckenridge 1986, 24; original italics)

Food, therefore, plays a central role in the socio-cultural construction of reality in India. Rules of proper and improper food provide a clear cultural definition of food. Rules regarding food transactions constitute a social code that strengthens the hierarchical organization of castes and demarcates the boundaries of purity. The rules that surround all aspects of food in Indian society can thus be seen as constituting an elaborate food code.36 Ascetic ideology and practice, however, presents an interesting counterpoint to the socially constructed reality of food. The ascetic attitude towards food can be broadly described as one of fear and ambivalence. On the one hand, one has to eat and is therefore dependent on food. On the other hand, food is what keeps sa∫såra going and is, therefore, inimical to the whole ascetic enterprise. This ambivalence has created what I would characterize as an obsession with food within Indian ascetic traditions. Indeed, the relationship to food—how one procures it, how long one stores it, and how and whether one eats it—is a defining characteristic of Indian asceticism in general as well as of individual ascetic orders and sects. A common name for wandering ascetics—bhikßu or beggar—points to this relationship. Mendicant ascetics do not own or produce food and are totally dependent on the generosity of others for their sustenance. Forest hermits show a different relationship to food: they are food gatherers. Their food is not mediated by culture and consists of wild and uncultivated fruits, leaves, roots, and the like. Most Brahmanical classifications of ascetics, moreover, are based on the way ascetics procure, store, and consume food. There are four areas of the human relationship to food that play significant roles in ascetic food practices: production or procurement, storage, preparation, and consumption. In each of these areas, people expend enormous effort and energy, which I will call the human food effort. The major pattern that emerges from ascetic food practices is the minimization and, at some levels, even the elimination of the human food effort in each of these four areas. At the level of production, ascetic behavior demonstrates a progressive lessening of effort. All Indian ascetics abandon cultural mediation in procuring/producing their food. This, indeed, appears to be a hallmark of Indian asceticism. Both the mendicant and the hermit are, each in his own way, food gatherers. Hermits gather from the forest, renouncers gather or beg from people. In several Brahmanical classifications of mendicants, 36

See Olivelle 2002a, 2002b.

118

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

the highest type does not direct any effort at all towards procuring food and are said to observe the “python-vow”: they remain still like a python awaiting what they may receive by chance. The length of food storage is the most frequent criterion for the classification of hermits; the highest do not store at all, eating what they gather each day. All mendicants follow the same rule of not storing anything for the morrow. They are, moreover, forbidden to cook, the absence of fire being a hallmark of mendicant ascetics. When the minimization of the food-effort is taken to its logical conclusion, an ascetic would not even make the effort to take food into his mouth or to swallow it. This is religious suicide by fasting, a well-known and respected way of ending life in numerous Hindu and non-Hindu traditions, especially the Jain (Dundas 1985; Settar 1986, 1990). The ascetic attitude towards food is the very antithesis of the boast recorded in the TU (3.10.6): I am food! I am food! I am food! I am the eater of food! I am the eater of food! I am the eater of food!

and of the value placed on having plenty of food: According to the Veda, one’s diet was overdetermined. Eating was simultaneously an act of nourishment, a display of wealth and status, and a demonstration of domination over that which was eaten. In all cases, to eat one’s proper food was to participate in a natural and cosmic order of things. (Smith 1990, 178)

The minimization of the food-effort, which is a major principle behind ascetic food practices, is based on the ascetic ideology that sees creation as something deeply flawed and from which one must seek liberation. The Vedic tradition’s close association between food and creation would generate positive attitudes with regard to food if creation and human life are considered positively as things of value. If, however, creation is regarded as a fall from a more perfect state, then the same cosmic role of food would necessarily impart a negative value to food. This is what appears to have happened within the context of the sa∫såric view of creation shared by all ascetic traditions. An interesting confirmation of this comes from a Buddhist myth found in the Agga∞∞a Sutta of the Dœgha Nikåya.37 In the beginning, before the appearance of the sun and the moon, there existed beings 37 For a longer discussion see Olivelle 1991; above pp. 71—89. The nature of this myth has been the subject of some controversy: see Olivelle 1991, note 19 (above p. 83); Gombrich 1992; Collins 1993 has noted the resonance in terminology and images between this myth and the Buddhist monastic code. Gombrich has argued that this is not a creation myth but a satirical parody of the Brahmanical obsession with food. For my purposes it does not matter whether it is a myth or a parody. In either case the story presents a view that is antithetical to the Brahmanical ideology of food. For a similar myth from the Hindu tradition, see Liõga Puråña 1.39.

Deconstruction of the Body

119

without sexual or other distinctions. This is presented as a paradisiacal state. Then on the primordial cosmic water there appeared a sort of scum tasting like honey. The beings made the fatal mistake of eating this scum. This first eating of food set in motion a series of events that gave rise to the world as it is. All the significant moments of this process involved eating, which made the beings more coarse and food more scarce. As the eating progressed the early forms of spontaneous food was replaced by rice. This primordial rice was without the husk or brown powder that today covers the grain. It did not have to be cultivated, and it could be eaten as it was picked As they continued to eat that rice sexual differentiation emerged among those beings: men and women appeared. Lust and passion entered their hearts and they began to have sexual intercourse with each other. The origin of houses, as we have seen, is traced to these depraved acts; they built them to hide their acts from others! The event that finally destroyed the early paradisiacal state was the act of food storage. Until then rice had grown spontaneously in a form that needed no preparation and was ready to be eaten. When one crop was gathered, another appeared the next day. Some of those people, however, were lazy and did not want to go out each morning and evening to gather rice. They began to fetch rice sufficient for more than one day. As they hoarded rice, powder and husk began to envelop the grain, and when reaped the rice plants did not spontaneously grow back. Rice had to be cultivated. Cultivation led to private property, theft, and the institution of social and governmental structures. All because those primordial beings had started to eat! In the ideal world nature provides everything humans need. So long as they take only what they need each day, this condition continues. Taking more than one needs, hoarding for the future, creation of ownership: these results of greed are the basic causes of the world’s deterioration. The food code of ascetics has both a cosmological and a soteriological dimension and meaning. The progression of the ascetic withdrawal from the food effort is a mirror image of the progression of cosmic evolution, an evolution produced by the human involvement in the food effort. At one level it signifies the ascetic evaluation of the cosmos and society as negative realities from which the ascetic flees. His very withdrawal from food is an expression of his withdrawal from social and cosmic engagement. He stands outside the food cycle, because he only eats food but never offers it to others, thus inverting the admonition, often repeated, that food must be shared. The food of the ascetic is thus unlike the food of other humans. The ascetic deconstruction of food transforms its ritual and social meanings. Many sources, for example, ask ascetics to regard food as medicine—something to be taken because of necessity and not for enjoyment, something whose taking lacks the meanings ascribed to it within society and underscores the ascetic perception of the body as a disease in search of a cure.

120

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

7.3. Hair In the three decades since the publication of Leach’s (1958) seminal essay “Magical Hair,” which was itself a response to the naive psychoanalytic work of Berg (1951), the social and anthropological significance of the cultural manipulation of head hair has received long overdue scholarly attention.38 This is not the place to discuss the controversies between the socio-anthropological and the psychoanalytic interpretations of hair symbolism. I believe, however, that the recent work of Obeyesekere (1981, 1990) has provided us a way of combining the best of both disciplines, an approach I will follow in this study. There appears, however, to be a scholarly consensus that cross-culturally control of head hair marks a person’s association with society and his or her participation in social structures.39 Shaving, on the other hand, represents a moment of separation from society. Such separations in India occur during periods of mourning and prior to a life-cycle ritual (van Gennep 1960). Some forms of separation and social marginality (Douglas 1982, 85), moreover, are signified by loose and unkempt hair. In the case of women in India, this occurs also during periods of mourning and menstruation, when their hair is left unbraided and unwashed (Hershman 1974). These are the social and what Leach (1958, 153) calls the publicly recognized meanings of hair. Leach (1958, 154) himself acknowledges, however, that much of the ethnographic evidence supports an unconscious association of hair with sexuality: In ritual situations: long hair = unrestrained sexuality; short hair or partially shaved hair or tightly bound hair = restricted sexuality; close shaven hair = celibacy.

Leach, however, separates the unconscious sphere from the social, the former dealing with individual deep motivations and the latter with socially accepted meanings and public means of communication. Obeyesekere objects, rightly I believe, both to Leach’s watertight division between private and public symbols and to the psychoanalyst assumption that all symbols must have deep motivational significance. He makes a useful distinction between personal symbols involving deep motivational significance and what he calls psychogenetic symbols, which originate in the unconscious but acquire conventional and publicly available meanings. “Symbols originating from unconscious sources,” Obeyesekere (1981, 13—14) observes, “are used to give expression to meanings that have nothing to do with their origin.” These operational meanings of symbols such as hair should be analytically 38 39

Hallpike 1969, 1987; Cooper 1971; Firth 1973; Hershman 1974; Lincoln 1977. Hallpike 1969, 1987; Douglas 1982, 72.

Deconstruction of the Body

121

distinguished from their deep motivational genesis. In his recent work The Work of Culture (1990), Obeyesekere calls this distinction “symbolic remove.” A symbol may operate at different levels of symbolic remove from its genesis in deep motivation “producing different levels of symbolization, some closer to, some more distant from the motivations that initially (psychogenetically) triggered the symbolic formation” (Obeyesekere 1990, 57). The public meaning of separation from society as well as the unconscious sexual associations of shaven and unkempt hair are operative in the symbolic complex of the hair of Indian ascetics.40 Ascetic hair in India comes in two forms: it may be completely shaved or it may be left unkempt and thus become matted. The former is associated with wandering mendicants, including Hindu sa∫nyåsins as well as Buddhist and Jain monks, who are ritually separated from society but return to it to beg their food and who operate within it as holy men and teachers. The latter is obligatory for forest hermits, who are physically separated from society. Let us take up first the case of matted-hair ascetics. To understand adequately the symbolism of matted hair it is necessary to locate it within the larger grammar of the symbols associated with the physical withdrawal from society. Besides long and matted hair, bodily symbols include long and uncut beard in the case of males, long and uncut nails, eating only uncultivated forest produce, clothes of tree bark or animal skin, and frequently also bodily uncleanliness. People with matted hair are required to live in the forest and not to enter a village; they are repeatedly admonished “not to step on plowed land,”41 the prime symbol of civilized geography. They are said to imitate the habits of wild animals. One can decipher from this symbolic grammar the following statement: a matterhaired individual renounces all culturally mediated products and institutions and all culturally demarcated geographical areas. He or she leaves social structures and returns to the state of nature and to the way of life of wild animals. Not grooming the hair, not controlling it in any way, letting it grow naturally into a matted condition— all this symbolizes a person’s total and absolute withdrawal from social space, structures, and controls. Mary Douglas (1982, 70—71) has drawn attention to the correspondence between social control and bodily control: If there is no concern to preserve social boundaries, I would not expect to find concern with bodily boundaries. The relation of head to feet, of brain and sexual organs, of mouth and anus are commonly treated so that they express the relevant patterns of hierarchy. Consequently I now advance the hypothesis that bodily control is an expression of 40 I refer the reader to my longer study of hair symbolism in India in general and among Indian ascetics in particular: Olivelle 1998. 41 GDh 3.32.

122

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

social control—abandonment of bodily control in ritual responds to the requirements of a social experience which is being expressed.

Matted-haired ascetics of India are a prime example of total neglect of bodily boundaries resulting in the utter lack of control of those boundaries. Nails, beard, hair—they are all left uncontrolled. This lack of concern for bodily boundaries, as Mary Douglas’s hypothesis predicts, is accompanied by total withdrawal from society and socially defined space. Leach and others consider long and uncontrolled hair as equivalent to sexual license. While in a given case this may be true, in a publicly available symbol such as the Indian matted hair there is a considerable symbolic remove between its operational meaning and its possible unconscious sexual associations. It is clear that sexual license was not a characteristic of Indian matted-haired ascetics. Here the primary public meaning of matted hair appears to be the total physical separation from society and social boundaries. Thus the matted hair and other outward insignia of a forest hermit are employed even when a person is sent into political exile, the most prominent case of which is that of Råma and his wife Sœtå. The unconscious associations, however, have some relevance, because the sexuality of the matted-haired ascetic has always remained ambiguous, in stark contrast to the universally accepted celibacy of the shaven-haired ascetic. In any case, celibacy is not a hallmark of matted-haired hermits of India. Let us now turn to the shaven-headed ascetics. A central feature of the rites of initiation into the ascetic life in all traditions —Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain— is the removal of the hair of the head and, for males, of the face. Although, as we shall see, there are clear sexual implications in shaving the head, I believe that its central social message is not that of castration, as many have argued, but the ritual (as opposed to the physical) separation from society of the shaven ascetic. The message of ascetic shaving cannot be totally different from the message inherent in the spectrum of Indian rites involving shaving. And that message is not principally about sex but about society, or, more accurately, about the ritual separation from society. The shaven head of an ascetic, just as much as the shaven head of an initiated student, a widow, or a criminal, proclaims that the individual is not part of society and has no social role or status. Sexual symbolism, however, is not lacking. All people ritually shaven, not just ascetics, are forbidden to engage in sex. For most this is a temporary condition required by a rite of passage or necessitated by ritual pollution, but for the ascetic it is permanent, and therein lies the difference between ascetic and other forms of ritual shaving. Social control is primarily sexual control, and the controlled hair of social individuals symbolizes their participation in the socially sanctioned structures for sexual expression, especially marriage. Removal of hair separates the individual from that structure and from the

Deconstruction of the Body

123

legitimate exercise of sexual activity. Shaving for the ascetic, I believe, indicates his or her removal from socially sanctioned sexual structures and also from other types of social structures and roles. In the Indian context, this implies loss of caste, inability to own property, and lack of legal standing in a court of law. Elements of the ascetic initiatory ritual indicate, furthermore, that shaving symbolizes the return to the sexually and socially undifferentiated status of an infant. During the Hindu ritual, for example, the shaven ascetic takes off all his clothes. The naked renouncer is significantly called jåtarüpadhara, which literally means one who bears the form one had at birth. The ascetic is not just naked; he is reduced to the condition in which he was born, to the state of a new-born infant. I believe that shaving is part of the symbolic complex that signifies his return to “the form he had at birth.” The absence of hair, just as much as nakedness, takes the initiate back to the pre-pubertal state of infancy. The sexual symbolism of hair also helps explain some interesting features of ascetic behavior toward hair. It is well known that Jain monks at their initiation and periodically throughout their life remove the hair of their head by the painful procedure of plucking them from their roots. That this custom was not limited to the Jains is demonstrated by its presence in a somewhat abbreviated form in the Hindu ritual of ascetic initiation. Here the ascetic’s hair is first shaved, but five or seven hairs at the crown are left uncut. At the conclusion of the rite the ascetic plucks these few hairs from the roots. Now, one may attribute this practice to the common ascetic propensity to bodily torture and pain. But I think that this literal eradication of hair can be viewed as a symbolic uprooting of sexual drives and attachments, a ritual castration. That shaving is the opposite of sexual engagement is also brought out in the way Hindu ascetics shave their heads during the annual liturgical cycle. They are not allowed to shave any time they want to. Rather the prescribed time for shaving is at the junctures between the five Indian seasons: spring, summer, rains, autumn, and winter. Now the Sanskrit term for season is ®tu, the same term that is used to indicate the monthly menstrual cycle of a woman. A husband is required to have sexual intercourse with his wife in her ®tu, that is soon after the end of her menstrual period when a new season begins for his wife. I think it is not farfetched to see a correspondence between the husband approaching his wife at the beginning of her season, and the ascetic shaving his head at the beginning of a season. This shaving appears to symbolize an ascetic’s renunciation of sex precisely at the time when the ethics of society requires a man to engage in it. 7.4. Conclusion Mary Douglas (1982) has argued, convincingly I believe, that there is a direct correspondence between social experience and bod-

124

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

ily expression. Ecstatic states, spirit possessions, and lack of bodily control depend not as much on psychological maladjustment or economic deprivation as on the experience of weak social constraints. Social marginality is thus expressed through the medium of the body by the slackening of bodily control. Even within societies with a high degree of control, where, in Douglas’ terminlogy, the group and the grid are strong, there are bound to be individuals and groups that are alienated from or ideologically opposed to the social and religious mainstream. These subsystems also express their alienation through the restricted code of bodily symbols. In such sub-systems, we can see another restricted code taking over. The body is still the image of society but somewhere inside it someone is not accepting its rule. I am suggesting that the symbolic medium of the body has its restricted code to express and sustain alienation of a sub-category from the wider society. In this code the claims of the body and of the wider society are not highly credited: bodily grooming, diet, pathology, these subjects attract less interest than other non-bodily claims. The body is despised and disregarded, consciousness is conceptually separated from its vehicle and accorded independent honour. Experimenting with consciousness becomes the most personal form of experience, contributing least to the widest social system, and therefore most approved. (Douglas 1982, 160—61)

Many of the features that Mary Douglas identifies in the sub-systems of alienation are precisely those we have seen within the ideology and practice of Indian ascetic traditions. These include anti-ritualism, neglect of the body, withdrawal from society, an ethic of internal motive, techniques for gaining altered states of consciousness, lack of community, and the lonely quest for personal salvation. The deconstruction of the body we have examined can thus be seen as the expression of an anti-social and individualist ideology through the medium of the body. We can see in this type of religion the rejection of a religious view based on strong social constraints, such as we find in the early Vedic and the later Brahmanical traditions. The rejection of social structures implicit in the deconstruction of the body is also expressed in the ascetic imitation of the life and habits of wild beasts, what may be called the ascetic’s adoption of an animal body.42 Animal symbolism is present in much of Indian ascetic literature, especially in connection with forest hermits. The ascetic impulse to leave society and culturally mediated structures, tools, and geography is nicely captured in this verse: Moving about with wild beasts, and dwelling with them alone; 42

See my paper “Beast and Ascetic” above, pp. 91—100.

Deconstruction of the Body

125

Living a life just like theirs— clearly that’s the way to heaven.43

But what sort of a social experience creates the ascetic alienation and underlies the ascetic bodily expressions? This is a question to which we cannot provide an adequate answer, because we have so little information about Indian society during the time when many of these ascetic traditions started, although ascetic movements in India appear around the same time as the formation of city-states.44 The ascetic deconstruction of the body throughout the history of Indian religions, however, has remained in lively tension with the socially approved expressions of bodily control. At many points the two attitudes and expressions influenced and modified each other. A good example of this is the controversies regarding bodily purity and the observance of the Brahmanical code within medieval ascetic sects (Olivelle 1986—87). Over time, moreover, ascetic traditions themselves became monastic institutions with powerful social, economic, and political roles within society. The social experience of individuals in such institutions was clearly not marginal, alienated, or revolutionary; their society was, to use Douglas’s terms, strong in terms of both group and grid. The changes such changing social experiences caused in the ascetic perception of the body are an interesting and important subject of inquiry, but outside the scope of this essay.

43 This verse concludes and encapsulates the sections dealing with holy householders (3.2.19) and forest hermits (3.3.22) in the BDh. 44 For a longer discussion about the possible connection between urbanism and the rise of asceticism, see Olivelle 1993, 55—58. The psychoanalytic attempts to imagine the social experiences (Masson 1976) underlying Indian asceticism are mere scholarly guesses, not historical evidence.

8. Contributions to the Semantic History of Sa∫nyåsa*

Sa∫nyåsa is a relatively new term in the Sanskrit vocabulary. It occurs rarely in the Vedic corpus and did not enter the Buddhist or Jaina vocabularies. Even medieval Sanskrit lexicographers ignore this term. Sa∫nyåsa is used exclusively in Brahmanical writings, and in its early usage indicated only one aspect of renunciation, namely the abandonment of ritual activity. In the early phase of its semantic development several attempts were made to give it restricted technical meanings. These, however, did not gain popular acceptance. An important stage in this development is the use of sa∫nyåsa to designate the rite of renunciation. Sa∫nyåsa must have acquired its classical meaning as a generic term for renunciation and a synonym of such well-known terms as pårivråjya and pravrajyå several centuries after Manu. We find it used with that meaning in texts belonging to the 3—4 century CE. Sa∫nyåsa is the most common term for the life-style of a world renouncer both in Sanskrit and in the modern Indian languages. It is often given as the title of the fourth å†rama.1 Sa∫nyåsin is commonly used as a synonym of terms such as parivråjaka, pravrajita, †ramaña, bhikßu and yati. I shall call this the classical meaning of S.2 Perhaps due to the extensive use of S with that meaning in the medieval Sanskrit literature, scholars have tacitly assumed that the term had an identical meaning also in the ancient period of Indian literature. Evidence, however, does not warrant such an assumption. * Originally published in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 101 (1981): 265—274. Both the Våcaspatya and the ‡abdakalpadruma give caturthå†rama as a synonym of sa∫nyåsa. The only definition of saññåsa that the Påiasaddamahaññavo gives is caturtha å†rama. 2 In this paper sa∫nyåsa, sa∫nyåsin, sa∫nyasana, sa∫-ny√as and other cognate terms will be collectively referred to as ‘S.’ 1

128

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

8.1. S is not a common term in the Vedic literature. Only the verbal forms of S occur in the pre-upanißadic texts: twice in the Sa∫hitås and twice in the Bråhmañas. In these S is unrelated to renunciation. The expression nüna∫ ta∫ navya∫ sa∫nyase is used in a hymn to Indra found in the Jaiminœya Sa∫hitå (2.7.3). It is repeated in the Mahånåmnårcika (8) of the Kautuma Sa∫hitå and in the Aitareya Årañyaka (4.9). The precise meaning of the term sa∫nyase in this context is unclear.3 The meaning of S is clearer and more specific in the Maitråyañœ Sa∫hitå: aõgiraso vai svaryanto yatra mekhalåΔ sa∫nyåsya∫s tataΔ †aro ’jåyata (3.6.7). According to this myth, †ara grass, which is used to make girdles, first grew at the place where the Aõgirases had cast off their girdles when they were about to go to heaven.4 Here S refers to the act of throwing down together in a pile objects no longer wanted. It implies rejection or discarding —an important aspect of its meaning in later usage. Both occurrences of S in the Bråhmañas are in the ‡atapatha. The meaning of S and the context in which it is used there are the same as in the Maitråyañœ. The first occurrence is in the myth on the origin of the elephant. The seven sons of Aditi fashioned man out of the aborted eighth son. In the process they cut off some of the flesh, which they “threw down in a pile.” From that the elephant came into being: tasya yåni må∫såni sa∫k®tya sa∫nyåsus tato hastœ samabhavat (3.1.3.4). The second is in the myth on the origin of a†vavåla (horse’s tail) grass. The sacrifice, assuming the shape of a horse, had escaped. The gods ran after it. They caught hold of its tail, tore it out and “threw it down in a pile”: tån ålupya sårdha∫ sa∫nyåsus tata etå oßadhayaΔ samabhavan —“They tore them [tail hairs] and threw them down together. From that these plants came into being” (3.4.1.17). In the classical Upanißads S occurs only in a single verse of the Muñ∂aka: sa∫nyåsayogåd yatayaΔ †uddhasattvåΔ —“ascetics, their being purified by the discipline of sa∫nyåsa” (3.2.6). The fact that yatis are purified through the practice of sa∫nyåsa suggests that in the eyes of the author of the Muñ∂aka sa∫nyåsa is a discipline undertaken by a yati and, therefore, not synonymous with a yati’s state of life. The Mahånåråyaña Upanißad, apart from citing the above Muñ∂aka verse at 229, does not use S at all, although its editor, Varenne, calls it “une sorte de ‘Bréviaire’ du Renonçant”5 and its last part “une sa∫nyåsa3 The editors of the VVRI word index consider sa∫nyase to be an obscure term. A. B. Keith is also of the same opinion: see Aitareyårañyaka (Oxford, 1909), p. 263, note 7. Såyaña, commenting on the Mahånåmnårcika, 8, and the Aitareya Årañyaka, 4.9 explains sa∫nyase thus: samyaõ nitarå∫ prakßipåmi; asmin karmañi havißo bhokt®tvena sthåpayåmi. According to Såyaña, therefore, it refers to the bringing down of Indra to partake of the sacrifice. 4 For another version of this myth see TS 6.1.3. 5 Varenne 1960, II, pp. 43, 52, 64. I have followed Varenne’s edition in citing this Upanißad.

Semantic History of Sa∫nyåsa

129

upanißad.”6 Four times (516 twice, 530, 538) it uses the term nyåsa with a meaning approximating sa∫nyåsa. Both the Muñ∂aka and the Mahånåråyaña are rather late Upanißads and are in all probability post-Buddhist.7 S is repeated twice in the stock phrase sa∫nyåsœ ca yogœ cåtmayåjœ ceti in the Maitråyanœ Upanißad (6.10). This text is even later than the other two, and van Buitenen (1966, 44, 109) in his critical edition considers the passage in question an editorial interpolation. 8.2. Surprising as it may seem, S is totally absent in the Buddhist and the Jain vocabularies. It is not found either in Påli, which has parallels for all common Sanskrit terms for a renouncer and renunciation,8 or in Jain Pråk®t.9 As far as I can determine S is not found even in Mahåyåna literature. According to Edgerton (1953, II: 559) sa∫nyasa (=sa∫nyåsa) in Buddhist Sanskrit signifies a kind of disease. This evidence indicates that S did not belong to the vocabulary of the common ascetic heritage of both Bråhmañism and the heterodox sects. 8.3. Even in post-Vedic Brahmanical literature S is not as commonly used as we have been led to believe. In the ‡rautasütras S, always in the verbal form, is used a total of five times. 10 These usages, again, are outside the context of renunciation. In at least three of these occurrences S is used to indicate the discarding of unwanted items. The Baudhåyana ‡rautasütra, describing the patnœsa∫yåja offerings, states that blades of darbha are placed between the wife’s thighs and arranged in a straight row from the gårhapatya fire to the åhavanœya. What remains is “thrown down” on the bed of grass covering the altar: atha yåni ati†ißyante tåni barhißi sa∫nyasyati (3.30). Similarly, in the same text, the Agnidha priests are said to eat pieces cut from the oblation and to “throw down” the remainder: ßa∂avatta∫ nighreña bhakßayitvå barhißi sa∫nyasyanti (5.15). A very similar usage is 6

Varenne 1960, II, p. 41; see also p. 8.

7 See A. A. Macdonnel, A History of Sanskrit Literature (reprint; Delhi, 1965), pp. 191, 203;

Paul Deussen, The Philosophy of the Upanishads, trans. A. S. Gedden (Edinburgh, 1906), p. 24. 8 samaña, bhikkhu, yati, pabbajita, paribbåjaka, pabbajjå, pabbajati, paribbajati, etc. 9 I am grateful to Prof. Ernest Bender for pointing out two occurrences in Pråk®t. The forms saññåso and saññåsiña∫ occur in the Caitanyacandrodaya of Kavikarñapüra, alias Karñapüragosvåmin, ed. Rajendralal Mittra (Bibliotheca Indica, Nos. 47, 48, 60; Calcutta, 1854), p. 90. The editor of the Påiasaddamahaññavo (Varanasi, 1963, p. 839) is able to cite only this example in support of the terms. Kavikarñapüra was born in 1524 CE. This isolated occurrence of S in such a late and non-Jain work serves to highlight its conspicuous absence in early Pråk®t literature. 10 When this paper was written, I did not have access to the Månava ‡rautasütra, which has a section devoted to sa∫nyåsa. I deal with the term as it appears in this text in an appendix at the end of this paper.

130

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

found in the Vaikhånasa ‡rautasütra where the remnants of food sticking to the fingers after eating are said to be “thrown down”: tataΔ ki∫cid avaghråya barhißi lepa∫ sa∫nyasyati (9.9). The Hirañyake†i ‡rautasütra uses the term with reference to the instruments used to construct the altar. After its construction they are “thrown down in a pile”: sphyaΔ svastir ity utkare vedikarañåni sa∫nyaståni yathårüpam (8.5.23).11 Finally, in the Baudhåyana ‡rautasütra, the term is used without connotating rejection merely to indicate the depositing of several items together in one place: åh®tya samidha ågnœdhrœye sa∫nyasyanti (5.16). S is also absent in the G®hyasütras, with the exception of the Vaikhånasa and the Ågnive†ya, both of which belong to a period long after the composition of the classical sütras.12 Påñini and Pata∞jali, both of whom use several terms for a renouncer,13 fail to mention S. The Amarako†a, moreover, does not include S among the synonyms for “renouncer”.14 What is even more remarkable and surprising is that S has not entered the Sanskrit lexicographical tradition at all. Even medieval lexicographers, during whose time S was undoubtedly in common use, totally ignore it. Both Halåyudha (10th century CE) and Yådavaprakå†a (11th century CE) omit it in the list of synonyms for “renouncer”,15 although 11 At least according to the commentator, Gopœnåtha Bha™™a, rejection or discarding is not implied here: yaiΔ sphyådibhir vediΔ k®tå tåni vedikarañåni samyaõ nyaståni sa∫nyaståni etåd®†åni yathårüpa∫ yathåliõgam upatiß™hanta ity arthaΔ Ù . . . sa∫†abdaΔ p®thagbhåvena nyåsårthaΔ Ù nyastånœti †abdo nidhånavyåv®ttyarthaΔ Ù nœtyupasargo ’sa∫sargårthaΔ Ù utkare sphyådœnå∫ nyasana∫ parikarmikart®kam Ù sa∫nyastånœti†abdasvarasåt Ù anyathå sa∫nyasyeti brüyåt ÙÙ 12 Caland (1929, pp. xv-xvi)places the Vaikhånasa Smårtasütra around the 4th century CE. The recent work of Ram Gopal (1959, 79) supports Caland’s date: “Although all the arguments advanced by Prof. Caland may not meet with general acceptance, we see no reason to dispute the view that the Vaikhånasa Smårtasütra in its present form is a very late work.” On the Ågnive†ya G®hyasütra Gopal (1959, 30) comments: “Judged from the point of view of matter, style and language, this G®ihya is far removed from the other G®ihyas. Its style is diffuse and discursive and is marked with a stamp of recentness. Some of the topics treated of in the Agni. G. S. are absolutely foreign to the tenor of the other G®ihyasütras and bear the stamp of later religious ideas.” He continues: “The Ågnive†ya G®ihyasütra appears to be the latest of all the G®ihyasütras now available in print. Its style of composition can hardly deserve the name of Sütra-style. . . . All pieces of internal evidence point to the recentness of the Agni. G.S. . . . The Agni. G.S. is, on the whole, a late compilation” ( Gopal 1959, 80). S occurs once in the Baudhåyana Pit®medhasütra, 2.4.17. Caland calls the second Pra†na of this text, in which S occurs, “decidedly secondary”: The Pit®medhasütras of Baudhåyana Hirañyake†in and Gautama (Leipzig, 1896), p. ix. 13 parivråjaka, †ramaña, bhikßu, yati, maskarin: Påñini, Aß™ådhyåyœ, 4.3.110; 6.1.154; Pata∞jali, Mahåbhåßya on Påñini, 1.1.39; 2.1.1; 2.4.12; 3.2.14, 124—25; 4.2.66; 5.1.74, 113; 6.1.13, 154. 14 bhikßuΔ parivrå™ karmandœ pårå†ary api maskarœ Ù tapasvœ tåpasaΔ pårikåkßœ våca∫yamo muniΔ Ù Amarako†a, ed. V. Jhalakikar (Bombay, 1896), 2.7.42. 15 yatiΔ pårå†arœ bhikßuΔ parivrå™ pårarakßikaΔ Ù anå†akœ pravrajitaΔ karmandœ maskarœ yatœ ÙÙ Yådavaprakå†a, Vaijayantœ, Bråhmañådhyåya, 160. pårå†arœ vratœ bhikßur maskarœ pårirakßitaΔ Ù parivråjikas tapasvœ karmandœ tåpasaΔ sm®taΔ ÙÙ Halåyudha, Abhidhånaratnamålå, 2.254. Hemacandra, in his Anekårthasa∫graha, mentions yati (2.186) and pravrajitå (4.116) but not S.

Semantic History of Sa∫nyåsa

131

they give it as a synonym for “fasting”.16 The absence of S in the Amarako†a, therefore, does not warrant the conclusion that it was not in use during the time of Amarasi∫ha.17 Sanskrit lexicographers apparently did not introduce current usages into their lexicons but followed the established vocabularies handed down by their predecessors. We can, however, safely conclude that at least during the formative period of the lexicographical tradition, i.e., several centuries before Amarasi∫ha, S was not considered a synonym of other common words for a renouncer, such as bhikßu and parivråjaka. Other ancient texts in which S is absent include the Artha†åstra, the Kåmasütra and the Pa∞catantra, all of which use several terms for a renouncer.18 Surprisingly the Råmåyaña never uses S within the context of renunciation. S is found in the Råmåyaña at 3.8.25 with the meaning of “giving up” but without any reference to renunciation.19 At least twice sa∫nyåsa is used in it to mean “deposit” or “trust”.20 The glaring absence of S as a term for renunciation in the Råmåyaña becomes even more significant when contrasted with the Mahåbhårata in which it is used a total of fifty-three times (see below: 8.4., 8.6.). We may reasonably conclude that S was at best a very uncommon term for renunciation during the period when the Råmåyaña was put into its present form.21 It is perhaps in the Dharma†åstric literature that one would expect to find the most frequent use of S. This is no doubt true of the medieval commentatorial and nibandha literature. But the picture is very different in the literature of the more ancient period. S is absent in the three oldest documents, namely the Dharmasütras of Gau16 See Vaijayantœ, Bråhmañådhyåya, 144; Abhidhånaratnamålå, 4.75. The Vaijayantœ (Parådhyåya, 28) uses the term sa∫nyåsapallœ to mean a hut. 17 Winternitz (1998, 494) places the Amarako†a between the 6th and the 8th century CE. 18 Artha†åstra: pravrajita (1.10.7; 1.11.8; 1.21.26; 2.1.29, 30, 32; 2.23.2; 2.28.18, 20; 2.36.39; 3.1.12; 3.4.37; 3.20.16; 4.4.3; 4.13.36; 12.2.21; 13.2.44), parivråjaka (1.3.12; 1.12.4), bhikßu (1.11.1; 1.12.10, 13; 3.3.13; 3.4.4, 9; 4.1.62; 4.13.5; 5.1.19, 50; 5.2.11; 5.3.23; 11.1.52; 12.2.20), yati (3.16.37). Pa∞catantra: parivrå™ (1.124, 133, 170; 2.91, 135), parivråjaka (1.128, 158; 2.91, 96), bhikßu (5.46, 52), †ramañaka (5.49). Kåmasütra: kßapañå (4.1.9), kßapañakå (5.4.43), tåpasœ (5.4.43), pravrajitå (1.5.23, 29; 5.5.8), bhikßuka (1.5.34; 6.1.9), bhikßukœ (1.3.14; 1.4.35; 4.1.9; 5.4.43, 63; 5.5.24), liõgin (6.1.10; 6.6.29). 19 yadi råjya∫ hi sa∫nyasya. The reference is to Råma’s abdication. The critical edition gives several variant readings of sa∫nyasya: parityajya, sa∫tyakte. The Råmåyaña uses several terms to indicate a renouncer: parivråjaka (3.44.2, 3; 3.45.1; 3.47.8; 5.32.15), bhikßu (2.27.31; 3.44.8; 3.47.6; 4.3.3, 21; 4.4.14), †ramaña (1.13.8; 4.18.31), †ramañœ (1.1.46; 3.69.19; 3.70.7). 20 etad råjya∫ mama bhråtå datta∫ sa∫nyåsavat svayam (2.107.14); bharataΔ †iraså k®två sa∫nyåsa∫ påduke tataΔ . . . bhråtå tu mayi sa∫nyåso nikßiptaΔ sauh®dådayam (*2326); sa nyåsavidhinå (variant sa∫nyåsavidhinå) dattaΔ puñye tapasi tiß™hataΔ (3.8.15). See also 3.8.16, 17. At 5.53.8 S is used in the compound pråñasa∫nyåsa to mean suicide. 21 This dating may have to be revised downward following the more recent work of Hilteibetel 2001.

132

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

tama, Proto-Baudhåyana22 and Åpastamba. Vasiß™ha (10.4) is the first dharma†åstric writer to use the term, but with a very special and restricted meaning (see below, 8.4.). It is also absent in the Vißñu Dharmasütra, with the exception of a single occurrence in a subhåßita verse (22.91) found also in Manu (5.108) and in a somewhat different form in Yåj∞avalkya (3.32).23 Yåj∞avalkya uses the expression nyastakarmå (3.204) where nyasta stands for sa∫nyasta. Manu, as we will see, uses S only to indicate a special type of ascetic and not with reference to renunciation in general. 8.4. Each Indian religious tradition placed emphasis on different aspects of a renouncer’s life-style. In the earliest phase of renunciation known to us through Buddhist, Jain and Brahmanical writings the most important elements were considered to be the life of homeless wandering and mendicancy. 24 Consequently, we find the descriptive epithets parivråjaka, parivrå™, pravrajita and bhikßu among the most frequently used terms to indicate a renouncer. Within the Brahmanical tradition, however, there occurred over a time a noticeable shift in emphasis from wandering-mendicancy to the abandonment of ritual activity as the central feature of renunciation.25 This emphasis is expressed in the very rite of initiation into renunciation, whose main focus is the abandonment of all the accessories of the ritual, such as the sacred fires, the sacrificial thread, the top-knot, and the sacrificial utensils. The Bhagavad Gœtå in its diatribe against renunciation betrays the fact that during its time the essence of renunciation was generally considered to lie in the abandonment of ritual acts. This understanding of renunciation has remained constant throughout Brahmanical history. A work as late 22 Scholars are in agreement that the third and fourth pra†nas of the Baudhåyana Dharmasütra are later additions: see Kane 1962—75, I: 23. I believe that the section 2.17— 18, which concludes the second pra†na and deals with the rite of renunciation and the duties of a renouncer, also forms part of these later additions. For the sake of convenience I have called these later additions collectively “Deutero-Baudhåyana” and the older section consisting of the first pra†na and the first 16 chapters of the second pra†na “ProtoBaudhåyana.” In the latter, which should be considered the authentic sütra, renunciation is dealt with at 2.11.9—34. S is totally absent in the Proto-Baudhåyana, while it is regularly used in the Deutero-Baudhåyana. For further details, see Olivelle 1993, 86—91. 23 The verse reads: m®ttoyaiΔ †udhyate †odhya∫ nadœ vegena †udhyati Ù rajaså strœ manoduß™å sa∫nyåsena dvijottamaΔ ÙÙ For a discussion of this see below, n. 39. 24 This is expressed in the stock Påli phrase: agårasmå anagåriya∫ pabbajati (Mahåvagga, I.9.1; I.10.1; I.38.2; DN II.35). The Jains had a similar expression: agåråo añagåriya∫ pavvaie. See Jaina Sütras, tr. H. Jacobi (SBE, Vols. XXII, XLV), I, p. xxvii. 25 Ritual activity should be understood in the broadest possible sense. The Sanskrit karma encompasses everything that is enjoined in scriptures; this is referred to as the prav®ttidharma. The dharma of a renouncer is considered niv®ttidharma and consists of cessation from activity and acquisition of knowledge. For further details, see Olivelle 1975; above pp. 63—70.

Semantic History of Sa∫nyåsa

133

as Våsudevå†rama’s Yatidharmaprakå†a (YPra 1.2) defines renunciation thus: sa∫nyåso nåma vidhito g®hœtånå∫ nityanaimittikakåmya†rautasmårtakarmañå∫ praißamantra∫ samuccårya parityågaΔ. The praißa, namely the formula sa∫nyasta∫ mayå (“I have renounced”), is considered the essential act of the rite of renunciation. 26 According to Våsudeva it is karma (ritual acts) that one abandons when one utters this sacred formula. One of the earliest terms used to express this aspect of a renouncer’s life was anårambha. Årambha is a term commonly associated with the performance of ritual actions, especially one involving the sacrifice of an animal. Vasiß™ha, for example, states: årambhayaj∞åj japayaj∞o vi†iß™ho da†abhir guñaiΔ Ù The sacrifice consisting of softly recited prayers is ten times better than a sacrifice involving ritual immolation.27

The Gœtå uses årambha with that meaning at 3.7; 4.19; 14.12; 18.48. Already in the Gautama Dharmasütra (3.25) the renouncer is characterized as anårambhin. This is echoed in the Gœtå’s recurrent phrase sarvårambhaparityågœ (“one who abandons all ritual undertakings”: 12.16; 14.25). That the prevailing view considered anårambha essential to the goal of renunciation is indicated by the Gœtå’s (3.4)attack on it: na karmañåm anårambhån naißkarmya∫ purußo ’†nute Ù Not by the non-performance of ritual actions does a man attain freedom from action.

It is only to this single aspect of Brahmanical renunciation that S refers in its earliest recorded usage within the context of renunciation. Vasiß™ha (10.4), the first dharma†åstric writer to use the term states: sa∫nyaset sarvakarmåñi vedam eka∫ na sa∫nyaset Ù vedasa∫nyasanåc chüdras tasmåd veda∫ na sa∫nyaset ÙÙ Let him abandon all ritual activities; the Veda alone let him never abandon. By abandoning the Veda he becomes †üÂdra; therefore let him never abandon the Veda.

The meaning is clear: S should be directed at “all rites“ but not at the Veda. Manu attaches a technical meaning to S, but it is always directed at karma: sa∫nyasya sarvakarmåñi (6.95), eva∫ sa∫nyasya 26 atra sa∫nyåso nåma å†ramåd anå†ramåd vå sa∫nyåså†rama∫ gacchåmœti sa∫kalpaΔ praißoccårañam abhayadåna∫ ceti tritayam eva. YPra 20.1. The same assertion is made in the YdhS, p. 18. 27 VaDh 26.9. The term is used with reference to magical rites in the A‡ 9.7.68. See also MDh 7.43; MBh 12.12.17.

134

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

karmåñi (6.96). In Yåj∞avalkya also, where we find the expression nyastakarmå (3.204), S has the same meaning. The Bhagavad Gœtå uses S twenty-two times.28 The author of the Gœtå attempts to reinterpret the meaning or discover the “true” meaning of S. He proposes that attachment to or the desire for the fruits of karma (saõga, phala) ought to be considered the proper object of S, not karma as such. The very fact, however, that he felt the need to undertake such a reinterpretation demonstrates that S was commonly thought to refer to the abandonment of karma. S is used thirteen times in the Gœtå with karma as the object29 and nine times with desire or attachment as the object.30 Significantly the Gœtå calls a person who abandons his attachment to the fruits of karma “nityasa∫nyåsœ”, one who renounces incessantly or daily (5.3). The meaning of this expression becomes clear when we contrast the nityasa∫nyåsin with the regular sa∫nyåsin. The latter abandons karma once, namely during the rite of renunciation, whereas the former is engaged continually in abandoning attachment. For the Gœtå the nityasa∫nyåsin represents the true renouncer: sa sa∫nyåsœ ca yogœ ca na niragnir na cåkriyaΔ —“he is a sa∫nyåsin and a yogin, not someone who lives without a fire and who performs no rites” (6.1). Thus the Gœtå proposes sarvasa∫kalpasa∫nyåsœ, one who abandons all internal impulses and desires, (6.2, 4) as an alternative to the oft repeated injunction sarvakarmåñi sa∫nyaset —“He should renonce all rites.” What is significant for our study is that the Gœtå never uses S as a synonym of parivråjaka or bhikßu.31 In the vocabulary of the Gœtå, S indicates only a very restricted, though important, aspect of a renouncer’s life. In chapter 18 the Gœtå attempts to draw a distinction between sa∫nyåsa and tyåga (18.1). At first sight the distinction is clear enough: kåmyånå∫ karmañå∫ nyåsa∫ sa∫nyåsa∫ kavayo viduΔ Ù sarvakarmaphalatyåga∫ pråhus tyåga∫ vicakßañåΔ ÙÙ The renunciation of optional rites is sa∫nyåsa, sages declare. The abandonment of the fruits of all rites is tyåga, the wise declare. (BGh 18.2)

Tyåga thus indicates the internal quality of detachment, while sa∫nyåsa is the actual abandonment of optional rites.32 However, the Gœtå does not consistently maintain such a distinction. We have seen 28 BGh 3.4, 30; 4.41; 5.1, 2 (twice), 3, 6, 13; 6.1, 2 (twice), 4; 9.28; 12.6; 18.1, 2 (twice), 7, 12, 49, 57. 29 BGh 3.4, 30; 4.41; 5.1, 2 (twice), 5.13; 12.6; 18.1, 2 (twice), 7, 57. 30 BGh 5.3, 6; 6.1, 2 (twice), 4; 9.28; 18.12, 49. 31 It is significant that the Gœtå attacks only the abandonment of ritual activity and not other aspects of renunciation, such as wandering and mendicancy. 32 This restriction of sa∫nyåsa to the optional rites is generally followed by later Brahmanical writers. Both the Våcaspatya and the ‡abdakalpadruma give the Gœtå’s definition as the primary meaning of sa∫nyåsa.

Semantic History of Sa∫nyåsa

135

that S is often used with reference to the attachment to karmaphala, the fruits of rites and actions. Discounting the uses of tyåga outside the present context,33 it is used twenty-one times in the Gœtå with reference to the attachment to karmaphala34 and only ten times with reference to karma.35 Even though S is used more frequently with reference to karma and tyåga with reference to saõga and karmaphala, the two terms are used interchangeably in the Gœtå as in other literature on renunciation. Nevertheless, the fact that when making the above distinction (18.2) the author of the Gœtå instinctively chooses S to indicate the abandonment of karma is further proof that this term referred primarily to the abandonment of rites. A new dimension of S is unveiled in a stock phrase of the Gœtå: mayi sarvåñi karmåñi sa∫nyasya —“Having surrendered all rites/actions to me” (3.30; 12.6; 18.57). Abandonment is here transformed into surrender; God is the “place” where karma is “thrown down.” S is thus incorporated into the realm of bhakti. Sa∫nyåsa as “surrender” is also the theme of 9.27: yat karoßi yad a†nåsi yaj juhoßi dadåsi yat Ù yat tapasyasi kaunteya tat kurußva madarpañam ÙÙ Whateve you do, whatever you eat, whatever you sacrifice, whatever you give, whatever austeries you practise, O son of Kunti, do it as an offering to me.

One who performs karma as an arpaña is called in the very next verse sa∫nyåsayogayuktåtmå, one whose self if controlled by the practice of sa∫nyåsa (9.28). Karmasa∫nyåsa, in this sense, is equal to what the Gœtå at 11.55 calls matkarmak®t, “one who performs actions for me.” This meaning of S is related to some of its uses outside the context of renunciation noted earlier. In the Maitråyañœ Sa∫hitå (see section 8.1) and in the ‡rautasütras (see section 8.3), just as in Gœtå 3.30, the place where the items are thrown down is indicated by the locative case. In the Råmåyaña, we saw that S is used with the meaning “deposit” or “trust”, a meaning that comes close to what the author of the Gœtå has in mind when he states that one should surrender karma to God. During the formative period in the semantic history of S 36 attempts were made to give it a more precise and technical meaning. One such attempt is found in MDh 6.86—96. Manu deals with the fourth å†rama, i.e., renunciation, which he calls mokßa (see MDh 1.114; 6.35, 36, 37, 44), 33

See BGh 1.9, 33; 2.3; 4.9; 8.6, 13. BGh 2.48, 51; 4.20, 21; 5.10, 11, 12; 6.24; 12.11, 12 (twice); 16.21; 18.1, 2 (twice), 6, 9 (twice), 10, 11 (twice). 35 BGh 12.16; 14.25; 18.3 (twice), 5, 7, 8 (twice), 11, 48. 36 Roughly this period is from the 2nd century BCE to the 4th century CE. See section 8.7 below. 34

136

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

at 6.33—85. Verse 6.86 concludes that section and clearly indicates the conclusion of one topic and the beginning of another: eßa dharmo ’nu†iß™o vo yatœnå∫ niyatåtmanåm Ù vedasa∫nyåsikånå∫ tu karmayoga∫ nibodhata ÙÙ I have explained to you above the Law pertaining to self-controlled ascetics. Listen now to the ritual discipline of vedic sa∫nyåsikas.

This expression is used by Manu repeatedly to signal the passage from one topic to another.37 Manu, thus, clearly distinguishes vedasa∫nyåsika from yati, i.e., the normal renouncer, whose duties he has described under the fourth å†rama in the section immediately preceding this verse. In that section consisting of fifty-three verses Manu does not use S at all. Instead he uses the older terms pari-√vraj (6.33, 41, 85), pra-√vraj (6.34, 38, 39) and yati (6.54, 55, 56, 58, 69, 86). In the eleven verses (6.86—96) on the vedasa∫nyåsika, on the other hand, Manu uses S five times (6.86, 94, 95, 96 (twice)). The list of topics given in the first chapter also indicates that Manu envisages a distinction between yati and vedasa∫nyåsika: strœdharmayoga∫ tåpasya∫ mokßa∫ sa∫nyåsam eva ca Ù The Law pertaining to women, hermit’s life, renunciation, and sa∫nyåsa. (MDh 1.114)

Commentators of Manu as well as modern scholars have assumed that in this verse mokßa and sa∫nyåsa are used as synonyms.38 Nevertheless, such an assumption is unfounded. In this list Manu never uses two terms to describe one topic. Mokßa and sa∫nyåsa refer to two different sections of the book, i.e., 6.33-85 dealing with renunciation and 6.86—96 on the vedasa∫nyåsika. It is the life-style of a vedasa∫nyåsika that Manu calls sa∫nyåsa. What, however, is this sa∫nyåsa and how does it differ from normal renunciation (pårivråjya)? After opening the discussion of sa∫nyåsa at 6.86, Manu devotes the next two verses to stating that all four 37 At the start of the section on the king: eßa vo ’bhihito dharmo bråhmañasya caturvidhaΔ Ù puñyo ’kßayaphalaΔ pretya råj∞å∫ dharma∫ nibodhata Ù (6.97). Before the section on acts that lead to liberation: eßa sarvaΔ samuddiß™aΔ karmañå∫ vaΔ phalodayaΔ Ù naiΔ†reyasakara∫ karma viprasyeda∫ nibodhata ÙÙ (12.82). Similar expressions occur at 2.25; 5.146; 9.103, 220, 325, 336; 10.131; 12.107. For a more detailed treatment of these transitional verses, see Olivelle 2005a, 5—25. 38 Bhler translates the passage thus: “. . . (the manner of gaining) final emancipation and (of) renouncing the world.” Govindaråja takes the two terms as referring to the same state: bhikßoΔ sa∫sårahetutvån mokßaΔ sa∫nyåsa† ca bhikßudharmaprakåra eva. Kullüka takes mokßa as the “dharma of renouncers” but equates it with sa∫nyåsa: mokßahetutvån mokßa∫ yatidharmam Ù yatidharmatve ’pi sa∫nyåsasya p®thagupade†aΔ prådhånyaj∞åpanårthaΔ ÙÙ This interpretation is repeated almost verbatim by Råghavånanda. Sarvaj∞anåråyaña also equates the two: mokßa∫ mokßahetukarmasa∫nyåsa∫ karmaphalatyågam.

Semantic History of Sa∫nyåsa

137

å†ramas assumed successively lead a man to the highest state (nayanti paramå∫ gatim). Then he introduces a rider: it is not necessary to go through all the å†ramas in order to reach that state. In verses 6.89— 90 he praises the householder’s å†rama as the highest and the best. Everyone, irrespective of one’s å†rama, should observe the dharma consisting of ten points (6.91—92). Those who study this tenfold dharma and live according to it attain the highest state (6.93). The point Manu wants to make is clear: it is not necessary to become a renouncer (yati) to attain liberation. Even a householder who follows the tenfold dharma can be liberated. It is within this context that Manu offers sa∫nyåsa as an alternative to renunciation (mokßa or pårivråjya). Following the tenfold dharma, a twice-born may “abandon” (sa∫nyaset) after paying the three debts and learning the Upanißads (6.94). What he abandons is made clear in the next two verses where we find the expressions sa∫nyasya sarvakarmåñi —“having abandoned all rites” (6.95) and sa∫nyasya karmåñi— “having abandoned rites” (6.96). The vedasa∫nyåsika, therefore, gives up all ritual activities incumbent upon the head of a household. In this he is not different from a regular renouncer. Unlike the latter, however, he neither leaves home (pravrajati) nor wanders homeless (parivrajati). He lives at ease under the protection of his son: putrai†varye sukha∫ vaset (6.95). For Manu, therefore, sa∫nyåsa is a type of retirement. The retired person is still technically a householder; he has not entered the fourth å†rama.39 In his concluding statement (6.96), Manu states that such a person destroys his sins by sa∫nyåsa,40 and attains the highest state (pråpnoti paramå∫ gatim). This refrain repeated three times in nine verses shows that Manu is attempting to demonstrate that sa∫nyåsa is an alternative path to liberation not inferior to regular renunciation. This technical use of S became obsolete after Manu. As far as I can determine, the term vedasa∫nyåsin occurs in three other places: Deutero-Baudhåyana, 2.18.24; Kürma Puråña, 1.2.82; Yådavaprakå†a’s Yatidharmasamuccaya.41 39 The commentators Medhåtithi, Govindaråja and Nåråyaña take the vedasa∫nyåsika as belonging to the householder’s å†rama. Only Kullüka assumes that vedasa∫nyåsika is a Ku™œcaka, namely the fourth class of renouncer. Of course, the life-styles of holy householders are probably the historical roots from which the Ku™œcaka class of renouncers developed. 40 In the light of this belief that “sa∫nyåsa” destroys sins we can understand the assertion in the subhåßita verse referred to above (see note 22) that sa∫nyåsa is the purificant of Brahmins, as the current is that of a river and the monthly period that of a woman. In that verse too S probably does not refer to renunciation as such, but either to the life-style of a vedasa∫nyåsika or to the inner quality of detachment taught in the Gœtå. 41 Edited in Olivelle 1995: 5.3. Yådava is here citing a passage of ‡aunaka where two kinds of mendicants are distinguished: bhikßusa∫nyåsin and vedasa∫nyåsika. Both in the Kürma and in the Yatidharmasamuccaya the vedasa∫nyåsika is given as one classification of renouncers. The meaning in Deutero-Baudhåyana is less clear: v®kßamüliko vedasa∫nyåsœ. The commentator Govindasvåmin takes him to be a householder: vedasa∫nyåsiko g®hastha eva k®takarañœyo ’bhidhœyate. Våsudevå†rama (YPra 22.12 and 41.7) gives a different reading of this passage: v®kßamülakovidaΔ sa∫nyåsœ.

138

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Another technical use of S similar to that of Manu is found in the ņrama Upanißad. This text gives a fourfold classification of each å†rama and presents the ghorasa∫nyåsika (or ghorasa∫nyåsin) as the fourth class of householder (ņrU 97—98). As opposed to the vedasa∫nyåsika, the ghorasa∫nyåsika does not give up ritual activity. However, he undertakes an ascetic life-style and subsists by gleaning (u∞chav®tti). A significant aspect of both these technical uses of S is that they refer to some type of householder and not to a renouncer. This further supports our thesis that at the outset S was not synonymous with renunciation. 8.5. In the early uage of S we have seen that its direct object, usually karma, is explicitly mentioned. This is true especially when the verbal forms of S are used. Over time, however, S comes to be increasingly used without an object. When thus independently used, S refers to the performance of the rite by which one becomes a renouncer. The rite itself is referred to as sa∫nyåsa.42 Deutero-Baudhåyana (2.17.1) and the Ågnive†ya G®hyasütra (3.7.11) open their description of the rite with the identical expression: athåtaΔ sa∫nyåsavidhi∫ vyåkhåsyåmaΔ —“Next, we will describe the procedure of sa∫nyåsa.” The Baudhåyana G®hya†eßasütra uses a similar expression: athåtaΔ kapilasa∫nyåsavidhi∫ vyåkhyåsyåmaΔ —“Next, we will describe the procedure of sa∫nyåsa according to Kapila” (4.16.1). In the same context the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra uses the expression sa∫nyåsakramam —“the sequence of sa∫nyåsa” (2.6). Deutero-Baudhåyana calls the rite sa∫nyåsa also at 2.17.5. Once sa∫nyåsa became fixed as the title of the rite, the expression sa∫nyåsa∫ karoti (“He performs sa∫nyåsa”) comes to be used with increasing frequency with reference to the performance of the rite, in place of the verb sa∫nyasyati (or sa∫nyasati). In the ancient literature we find it used in the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra and the Mahåbhårata.43 This expression is used only when referring to the performance of the rite. The usual verbal form (sa∫nyasyati) is used in every other context. One probable reason for calling the Brahmanical rite of renunciation “sa∫nyåsa,” instead of, for example, pårivråjya or pravrajyå as in Buddhism, is the praißamantra: “sa∫nyasta∫ mayå.” The proclamation of the praißa is considered the essential act of the rite. The formula expresses what the Brahmanical tradition considers the essence of the life-style into which one is initiated by that rite, namely the non-performance of ritual actions.44 For numerous examples of such usage see YDhS pp. 1—5; YPra 1—21. VkhDh: vanåt sa∫nyåsa∫ kuryåt (2.6). MBh: åpatkåle hi sa∫nyåsaΔ karttavya iti †ißyate (12.10.17); vißayån parisa∫h®tya sa∫nyåsa∫ kurute yatiΔ (12.17.9); kadå vaya∫ karißyåmaΔ sa∫nyåsam (12.270.3). 44 See Olivelle 1975; above pp. 63—70. 42 43

Semantic History of Sa∫nyåsa

139

The classical use of S as a generic term for renunciation and as a synonym of the older terms such as pårivråjya was probably facilitated by its use with reference to the initiatory rite of renunciation. In fact, it is in those documents that use S in the latter sense, such as the Deutero-Baudhåyana, the Vaikhånasa Smårtasütra and the Mahåbhårata, that S is also used in the classical sense. The Deutero-Baudhåyana (3.2.17) and the Vaikhånasa Smårtasütra (5.8; 10.8) use sa∫nyåsin clearly as a synonym of yati. 8.6. There is great uncertainty regarding the chronology of the various strata that comprise the epic Mahåbhårata.45 It is, therefore, difficult to draw firm conclusions from a study of S in the epic. Nevertheless, it is significant that, if we exclude the Gœtå, S occurs twenty-one times in the ‡åntiparvan, once in the Anu†åsanaparvan, and five times in the Anugœtå, while it appears only four times in the rest of the epic.46 The ‡ånti, the Anu†åsana and the Anugœtå probably contain some of the latest additions to the epic. Only four times is S directly related in the Mahåbhårata to karma or yaj∞a (3.2.75; 12.21.8; 12.148.9; 12.154.30). On several occasions, however, the direct object of S is mentioned: agni (12.285.37), tapas, vidyå and sarvam (12.154.30). On five occasions the epic uses S with reference to the rite of renunciation (9.49.54, 55; 12.10.17; 12.17.9; 12.270.3). The reinterpretation of S made by the author of the Gœtå is echoed in several passages, as when Bhœma tells Yudhiß™hira that if by sa∫nyåsa one obtains perfection then hills and trees would have attained it long ago (12.10.24). He then goes on to explain the true renouncer in terms similar to Gœtå 5.3: ete hi nityasa∫nyåså d®†yante nirupadravåΔ Ù aparigrahavanta† ca satatam åtmacåriñah ÙÙ These, who perform sa∫nyåsa incessantly, are seen to be free of misfortunes; and they live without any belongings, always wondering by themselves. 45 J.A.B. van Buitenen states: “There is a general agreement that the oldest portions preserved are hardly older than 400 B.C. . . . While this terminus a quo is reasonable, and generally agreed upon, it is far more difficult to set a date ante quem; views on this depend on what one accepts as the “real” Mahåbhårata. In particular, the didactic portions of what has been called the pseudo-epic were added to very late, perhaps as late as the fourth century A.D.” The Mahåbhårata: 1 The Book of the Beginning (Chicago, 1973), p. xxv. More recently, Hiltebeitel (2001) has argued for the unitary authorship of the MBh, placing its compositon in the last century CE; whereas Fitzgerald (2004) has argued for a longer period of composition and editorial interventions, beginning in the last century CE and continuing until Gupta times. 46 ‡åntiparvan: 10.17, 24, 25; 17.9; 21.8; 47.36; 148.9, 13; 154.30 (4 times); 155.9; 189.7, 14; 211.7; 270.3; 285.37; 308.2 (twice), 4. Anu†åsanaparvan: 135.75. Anugœtå: 47.1, 4, 5; 48.7, 24. In the rest of the epic S occurs at 2.8.33; 3.2.75; 9.49.54, 55. At 9.47.15 S occurs outside the context of renunciation: deha∫ sa∫nyasya.

140

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

In a similar vein, Janaka while still a hoseholder is called sa∫nyåsaphalika, one who has obtained the fruit of sa∫nyåsa (12.308.4). The most common use of S especially in the ‡åntiparvan, is either in the classical sense or with reference to the inner virtue of detachment.47 One class of literature that we have not yet examined is the group of twenty texts commonly known as the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads.48 The dates of these documents are very uncertain. However, a reliable relative chronology has been established by Schrader,49 which is supported by the recent study of Sprockhoff (1976). Only the older group of eight Upanißads is relevant to our study. They are: Åruñi, Laghu Sa∫nyåsa, Kuñ∂ikå, Ka™ha†ruti, Paramaha∫sa, Jåbåla, Brahma, and ņrama. The rest, according to Sprockhoff’s study, belong to a very late period and regularly use S with the classical meaning. In the texts of the older group S occurs five times in the Kuñ∂ikå (19.2, 3, 4, 7; 20.4), seven times in the Ka™ha†ruti (31.1-2; 34.1; 37.7; 40.1) and four times in the Jåbåla (63.5; 69.1, 2; 71.4). Most of these uses conform to the classical meaning. In the Åruñi, on the other hand, which is probably the oldest of these Upanißads, S is used only in the praißamantra (9.3). It is significant that Åruñi uses the terms vi-√s®j, vi-√v®j and √tyaj eleven times (3.2; 5.1, 2; 6.1—5; 8.1-2; 9.2; 12.1) to mean discarding or abandoning, but never S. Similarly, it uses the terms yati (8.2; 11.3) and parivråjaka (11.1) for a renouncer, but not sa∫nyåsin. S is also totally absent in the first section (15-17) of the Laghu-Sa∫nyåsa, which is the oldest stratum of that text. In the Paramaha∫sa, S is used only once and there it has a direct object: svaputramitrakalatrabandhvådœ∞ chikåyaj∞opavœta∫ svådhyåya∫ ca sarvakarmåñi sa∫nyasya — “Having renounced his sons, friends, wife, relatives, and so forth, as well as the topknot, the sacrificial string, Vedic recitation, and all rites” (46.4). In this text also the term sa∫nyåsin is absent, while other common terms for a renouncer occur frequently: bhikßu (51.1; 52.1; 53.1, 2, 3, 4), tyågin (54.1), yati (54.4), yogin (54.5). S is absent in the Brahma Upanißad, while in the ņrama it occurs only in the expression ghorasa∫nyåsika (see above, 8.4). The absence of the classical usage of S in the Åruñi supports Sprockhoff’s (1976, 32) estimate of its date, i.e., the last centuries before the Christian era. Similarly, the total absence of S in the older section of the Laghu-Sa∫nyåsa indicates that Sprockhoff (1976, 47) is right in assigning to it a rather early date, close to the oldest Upanißads and the G®hyasütras. With reference to the Jåbåla, however, I must disagree with Sprockhoff (1976, 108), who places it around 300 BCE. Sprockhoff’s argument is based on Kane’s view that Baudhåyana 47 See ‡åntiparvan, 2.8.33; 12.10.24, 25; 12.47.36; 12.148.13; 12.155.9; 12.189.7; 12.211.7; 12.270.3; 12.308.2, 4; 13.135.75; 14.47.1, 4, 5; 14.48.7, 24. 48 All these documents are cited by the page and line numbers of Schrader’s edition (1912). 49 Schrader 1912, xxvi-xxxiv.

Semantic History of Sa∫nyåsa

141

Dharmasütra, 2.10.17.2 and 2.10.17.15 refer to Jåbåla 4.50 I have shown above that this section of Baudhåyana is a later addition. Thus Kane’s dating of Baudhåyana, i.e., 500—200 BCE, cannot be applied to that section.51 The frequent use of S by Jåbåla in its classical meaning makes it impossible to assign it a pre-Christian date. I agree with Sprockhoff that the Jåbåla and the passage of the BDh in question, which I have called Deutero-Baudhåyana, belong roughly to the same period. Both these documents, I feel, cannot be too far removed in time from the Vaikhånasa Smårtasütra and should be placed around 3—4 century CE. 8.8. S is a very uncommon term in the Vedic literature and in the ancilliary sütras. The earliest records we possess indicate that it was first used outside the context of renunciation to indicate the physical discarding of something no longer wanted. More rarely it indicated the depositing of an object in a given location. The entry of S into the vocabulary of renunciation may be placed around the 3rd—2nd century BCE.52 Several pieces of evidence support that date. The absence of S in the Buddhist and Jain literature points to a period well after the 5th century BCE. One cannot otherwise account for this absence in light of the fact that the Buddhists and the Jains use all the other common terms for renunciation found in the Brahmanical tradition. Its absence in the lexicographical tradition and in the classical G®hyasütras also point to a date close to the beginning of the present era. Even stronger evidence is forthcoming from the dharma†åstric tradition. S is absent in Gautama, ProtoBaudhåyana and Åpastamba, all of whom should be placed before the 3rd century BCE, while it appears in Vasiß™ha, who should be dated around the last century BCE. Furthermore, S is not used as a term for renunciation in the Råmåyaña, while it is commonly so used in the didactic portions of the Mahåbhårata. This too points to the period between the composition of the Råmåyaña and the final redaction of the Mahåbhårata, i.e., close to the beginning of our era. Within the framework of renunciation S is used exclusively in the Brahmanical tradition. In the earliest period of such usage it referred specifically to the abandonment of ritual activity, considered within Brahmanism as the most distinctive feature of renunciation. The centuries immediately following the introduction of S into the vocabulary of renunciation saw several attempts either to find 50

Sprockhoff 1986, 106; Kane 1962—75, II: 421, note 1001. Further, Kane’s dating of the early works on dharma has to be radically reevaluated. See my own estimates in Olivelle 2000, 4—10, and Olivelle 2006a. 52 Given my new dating of the early Dharmasütras, today I would place the entry of S into the ascetic vocabulary closer to the beginning of the Common Era. 51

142

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

new meanings of S or to give it more specific and technical meanings. The Gœtå changed the object of S from karma to saõga. Both Manu and the ņrama Upanißad take S as referring to a holy life-style adopted by householders. During this period S had not yet acquired a definite and universally accepted meaning. We come a step closer to the classical meaning when S is used as the title of the rite of initiation into renunciation. S must have acquired its classical meaning a considerable time after Manu. We encounter the classical usage for the first time in the Vaikhånasa Smårtasütra, Deutero-Baudhåyana and the didactic portions of the Mahåbhårata, especially the ‡åntiparvan and the Anugœtå. We would not be far wrong in placing this final semantic development of S around 3rd—4th century CE. Table Occurrences ofS in Ancient Sanskrit Literature Note: Numbers within brackets refer to the section of this article in which the uses of S in a given document are dealt with. An asterisk after a title indicates that it is cited according to the page and line number of Schrader’s (1912) edition. Ågnive†ya G®hyasütra 2.2.5; 2.7.11; 3.7.4, 11; 3.10.4 (8.3, 8.5). Aitareya Årañyaka 4.9 (8.1). Åruñi Upanißad* 9.3 (8.6). ņrama Upanißad* 97.1; 98.1 (8.4, 8.6). Baudhåyana Dharmasütra 2.10.17.1, 5, 27; 2.10.18.24; 3.2.17 (8.3, 8.4, 8.5). Baudhåyana G®hya†eßasütra 4.16.1, 3; 4.17.11, 13 (8.5). Baudhåyana Pit®medhasütra 2.4.17 (n. 13). Baudhåyana ‡rautasütra 3.30; 5.15, 16 (8.3). Bhagavad Gœtå 3.4, 30; 4.41; 5.1, 2, 3, 6, 13; 6.1, 2, 4; 9.28; 12.6; 18.1, 2, 7, 12, 49, 57 (8.4). Hirañyake†i ‡rautasütra 8.5.23 (8.3). Jåbåla Upanißad* 63.5; 69.1, 2; 71.4 (8.6). Jaiminœya Sa∫hitå 2.7.3 (8.1). Ka™ha†ruti Upanißad* 31.1—2; 34.1; 37.7; 40.1 (8.6). Kautuma Sa∫hitå Mahånåmnårcika 8 (8.1). Kuñ∂ikå Upanißad* 19.2, 3, 4, 7; 20.4 (8.6). Mahåbhårata (besides Gœtå) 2.8.33; 3.2.75; 9.47.15; 9.49.54, 55; 12.10.17, 24, 25; 12.17.9; 12.21.8; 12.47.36; 12.148.9, 13; 12.154.30; 12.155.9; 12.189.7, 14; 12.211.7; 12.270.3; 12.285.37; 12.308.2, 4; 13.135.75; 14.47.1, 4, 5; 14.48.7, 24 (8.5, 8.6). Mahånåråyaña Upanißad 229; 516; 530; 538 (8.1). Maitråyañœ Sa∫hitå 3.6.7 (8.1). Maitråyañœ Upanißad 6.10 (8.1). Manu Sm®ti 1.114; 5.108; 6.86, 94, 95, 96 (8.3, 8.4).

Semantic History of Sa∫nyåsa

143

Muñ∂aka Upanißad 3.2.6 (8.1). Paramaha∫sa Upanißad* 46.4 (8.6). Råmåyaña 2.107.14; 3.8.15, 25; 5.53.8; App. 2326 (8.3). ‡atapatha Bråhmaña 3.1.3.4; 3.4.1.17 (8.1). Vaikhånasa Smårtasütra 5.8; 9.6, 7; 10.8 (8.3, 8.5). Vaikhånasa ‡rautasütra 9.9 (8.3). Vasiß™ha Dharmasütra 10.4 (8.3, 8.4). Vißñu Dharmasütra 22.91 (8.3; n. 42). Yåj∞avalkya Sm®ti 3.32, 204 (8.3, 8.4; n. 42).

Postcript At the time of writing this paper I did not have access to the complete edition of the Månava ‡rautasütra.53 This ‡rautasütra has a section (8.25) that describes a rite called sa∫nyåsavidhi. As Sprockhoff (1987) has shown, this section of the Månava ‡rautasütra closely resembles the corresponding section the Ka™ha†ruti Upanißad. The term sa∫nyåsa in the Månava does not refer to the initiation ceremony of an ascetic. This section is embedded within the Månava’s treatment of death and after-death ceremonies. The term here refers to a rite undertaken by an old man who has completed his householde duties. The meaning here, then, comes close to that of the vedasa∫nyåsika in Manu and refers to a method of retirement in old age.

53 Ed. and tr. by J. M. van Geldner. 2 vols. Delhi: International Academy of India Culture, 1961—63; reprint Delhi: Satguru Publications, 1985.

9. The Semantic History of å†rama*

If we are to properly evaluate the meaning of the å†rama system, it is necessary to investigate first the meaning of the word å†rama and of cognate terms within the broader vocabulary of the Indian religious traditions in general and of the Brahmanical tradition in particular. Clearly the authors of the system operated within that linguistic world and shared that vocabulary, even when they stretched the meaning of the term in new and significant directions. ņrama is a relatively new term in the Sanskrit vocabulary. The word does not occur in the vedic Sa∫hitås and Bråhmañas or even in the early Upanißads. This term, I believe, originated as a neologism, a word coined at a particular time in Indian history to express a novel idea or to indicate a novel phenomenon or institution. Etymologies are not always helpful guides to the meanings of words in actual use. Indeed, even the Indian hermeneutical tradition considered the conventional meaning of a word to have greater force than any meaning that may be derived from its etymology.1 In a neologism like å†rama, however, where use has not determined the meaning, its etymology may provide us with helpful insights into its original use and meaning. This is especially true in the case of Sanskrit where early grammarians had accurately described the verbal roots, the function of suffixes, and the derivation of nouns and adjectives. We can be fairly certain that those who coined this word knew the function and meaning of the cognate term †rama, which appears frequently in the early vedic literature, and of the verbal root √†ram from which *

Originally published in Olivelle 1993, 8—24. Compare rü∂hir yogam apaharati —“the conventional meaning ousts the etymological” and rü∂hir yogåd balœyasœ —“the conventional meaning has greater force than the etymological.” See MK 6, 3327; Mnp 98. 1

146

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

both †rama and å†rama are etymologically derived. In determining the meaning of the term å†rama and consequently of the å†rama system, therefore, it will be useful to examine first its etymological roots. 9.1. The Meaning of ‡rama In this section I will examine the semantic history of both the verb √†ram and its nominal derivative †rama. They appear frequently in the early literature with two related meanings. The first meaning is “to become weary, tired, or exhausted,” and this usually carries a negative connotation. Weariness is something one seeks to avoid or at most to endure patiently; one does not welcome it or willingly accept it. The term is used frequently with this meaning in the context of traveling. Gods, for example, became weary (†ramayuvaΔ) after pursuing Agni (¥V 1.72.2). A bird became tired after flying (AB 3.25: a†råmayat; BU 4.3.19: †råntaΔ). The rivers, made to flow by Varuña, feel no weariness although they never cease to run (¥V 2.28.4: na †råmyanti). Similarly, the Soma juices flow unwearied (¥V 9.22.4: na †a†ramuΔ).2 The weariness, however, need not be physical; it may also be mental, as when it is associated with the fear of an enemy.3 The negative connotation of †rama as weariness is revealed very clearly in the ‡atapatha Bråhmaña (6.3.3.7), where it is equated with evil (påpman). Weariness may finally result in death; thus in the B®hadårañyaka Upanißad death is said to approach in the form of †rama.4 The second meaning is “to labor, to toil, or to exert oneself.” It implies strenuous activity or exercise which is directed at achieving a positive result or for which a reward is expected. The ¥gveda (10.114.10), for example, states that horses receive a recompense for their toil (†rama). The term is used most frequently in the vedic literature, however, to express the toil inherent in religious, especially ritual, exertions. ‡rama is closely related to the vedic sacrifice (yaj∞a), and hence it is frequently associated with two other ritual activities: austerity (tapas) and praise (arcana).5 A man toils (†a†ramåñaΔ) in bringing fuel for sacrifice (¥V 4.12.2). The Ådityas bestow wealth “on the wearied presser of Soma” (†råntåya sunvate: ¥V 8.67.6). Manu labored (a†råmyat) at cooking the sacrificial oblation (TS 1.7.1.3). The ‡atapatha Bråhmaña (12.3.3.1) states that when the gods performed a thousand-year sacrifice, all the creatures became worn out (†a†råma) 2 In a similar sense, the gods are told at ¥V 2.29.4: “Of kinsmen such as you never let us be weary” (må †ramißma). At ¥V 2.30.7 the author prays: “Let it not vex me, tire me (†ramat), make me slothful; and never let us say ‘Press not the Soma.’” 3 ¥V 8.4.7: må bhema må †ramißma —“may we not fear, may we not become weary.” Såyaña commenting on this verse interprets the term to mean “oppressed” (pœ∂ita). See also ¥V 10.105.3 where weariness (†a†ramåñaΔ) is associated with the fear of an enemy. 4 BU 1.5.21; see also BU 4.3.19. 5 On the meaning of tapas in the Vedas, see Blair 1961. On the relation between tapas, †rama, and the ritual, see Lévi 1898; Knipe 1975, 90—137; Kaelber 1989.

The Semantic History of å†rama

147

after the first 500 years. It is probably within the context of sacrificial toil that the ¥gveda (4.33.11) declares that when toil is absent (®te †råntasya) the gods are not inclined to friendship. As the toil inherent in the sacrifice, †rama is associated in a special way with three primordial and archetypal activities: the gaining of heaven by the gods, the discovery of sacrificial knowledge by the vedic seers, and the creation of the world. The gods won heaven by †rama (AB 2.13). When the nectar of immortality absconded, they searched for it by means of †rama and tapas (‡B 9.5.1.2). The seers likewise discovered the meters and the sacrificial bricks through †rama and tapas (TB 5.3.5.4).6 Both gods and seers searched for Speech (våc) in the same manner (TB 2.8.8.5). Then there is the story (‡B 1.6.2.1-3) of the gods who managed to get to heaven by means of the sacrifice. Prior to that they had lived on earth in the company of humans. In an effort to prevent humans from following them to heaven, the gods erased all traces of the sacrifice on earth. The seers, however, searched for the sacrifice by praising (arcantaΔ) and toiling (†råmyantaΔ), “for by toil (†rama) the gods indeed gained what they desired to gain, and so did the seers.” Here †rama is used clearly as a synonym for sacrifice. The most significant aspect of †rama, however, emerges in the descriptions of the creative activities of Prajåpati. To create the world Prajåpati toiled (a†råmyat) and tortured or heated himself (tapo ’tapyata). As he was thus worn out (†råntaΔ) and heated (tepånaΔ) he brought forth the creatures, which are his offspring (prajå). This paradigm is repeated constantly in creation stories.7 Evidently the priestly imagination patterned the creative acts of gods after the sacrificial acts of priests: Most of the creation-legends in the Bråhmañas begin in the same way. As the magician must prepare himself for his magic, and the priest must prepare for the sacrifice, by means of self-torture and mortification, so Prajåpati, too, has to prepare himself in the same way for the great work of creation. (Winternitz 1927, I, 220, n. 2)

The toil and exertion of Prajåpati’s creative act carry clear sexual connotations; creation is procreation. The Taittirœya Sa∫hitå (7.1. 5.1), for example, explicitly refers to the sexual intercourse between Prajåpati and earth. He spread her out and “in her Prajåpati labored” (tasyåm a†råmyat).8 The result of such toil is offspring, the goal alike 6 See also ‡B 1.7.2.23; 1.7.3.2, 14. Agni, Indra, and Sürya gain superiority over the other gods by praising and toiling (‡B 4.5.4.2). In the same manner, the gods strengthen Prajåpati when he is exhausted after creation (‡B 4.6.4.1). 7 See AV 4.35.2; 6.133.3; 10.7.36; 12.5.1; TS 7.1.5.1—2; ‡B 2.2.4.1; 2.5.1.1; 3.9.1.4; 6.1.1.8, 13; 6.1.3.1; 10.6.5.2—6; 11.1.6.1, 7; 11.5.8.1; TB 1.1.3.5. At ‡B 6.1.1.1 the seers create the universe through †rama and tapas. After the birth of Rudra, Prajåpati asks him why he cries “when you are born out of toil and torture“ (‡B 6.1.3.9). At TB 3.12.2.2—5 and 3.12.4.2-6 Prajåpati is asked to toil (†råmyasi) by various means; all his activities, indeed, appear to involve †rama. See also BU 1.2.2.6; GoB 1.1.1—2, 5, 6, 8. 8 The same expression is used in BU 1.2.2. See also ‡B 1.8.1.10. On the creative power of heat and its sexual connotations, see O’Flaherty 1973, 40—41.

148

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

of the creative and the procreative act. So when the gods, whom he had just engendered, tell Prajåpati, their father, that they too would like to have children, he advises them to imitate him in †rama and tapas (TS 7.1.5.2). The association of †rama with sexual activity is not limited to the gods. After the great flood had wiped out all creatures, Manu, the sole survivor, desirous of offspring, engaged in praise and toil.9 The toil of the aged couple Agastya and Lopåmudrå (¥V 1.179) is also associated with sex and the desire for progeny. The two meanings of †rama —weariness and labor— we have discussed have been noted also by Indian grammarians and lexicographers. The Dhåtupå™ha, the ancient list of Sanskrit verbal roots, for example, explains that the verb √†ram is used with reference to both religious austerity and fatigue.10 In the legend of ‡unaΔ†epa †rama is associated with a life of wandering away from human habitats, a meaning that may be a precursor of the later association of †ramaña with wandering ascetics. Rohita has wandered in the forest for a long time in order to escape being killed in sacrifice by his father. When he returns Indra advises him to wander more: “Manifold is the prosperity of him who is weary,” So have we heard, O Rohita; Evil is he who stayeth among men, Indra is the comrade of the wanderer. Do thou wander.11

As in other passages, here too the fruitfulness of †rama is emphasized, but the activity is here related to wandering, whereas the opposite, namely the sedentary mode of life, bears no fruit. This connection of †rama with wilderness and wandering, as we shall see, has significant implications for the semantic history of both †ramaña and å†rama. 9.2. The Meaning of ‡ramaña ‡ramaña is another important term in Indian religious history that is etymologically derived from the verb √†ram. Because of its etymological relationship to å†rama and because several scholarly studies have attempted to establish a link between the historical realities underlying these two terms,12 it will be useful to examine briefly the meaning of †ramaña. 9 ‡B 1.8.1.7: so ’rca∫† chråmya∫† cacåra prajåkåmaΔ —“desirous of offspring, he engaged in praising and toiling.” The same expression is used in the case of Prajåpati at ‡B 11.1.6.7, making clear the parallel between divine and human acts. 10 Dhåtupå™ha, 4.95: †ramu tapasi khede ca. For an assessment of its authorship and age, see Cardona 1976, 161—64. See also Bhånuji Dœkßita on Amarasi∫ha’s Amarako†a, 2.7.3. 11 AB 7.15 (Keith’s translation): nånå †råntasya †rœr astœti rohita †u†ruma Ù påpo n®ßadvaro jana indra ic carataΔ sakhå caraiveti ÙÙ 12 See, for example, Winternitz 1927, 226. Thapar (1982, 276) writes: “The †ramaña,

The Semantic History of å†rama

149

This term is used frequently in post-vedic literature and in inscriptions with reference to various types of ascetics. Buddhist and Jain canonical texts use it frequently to designate Buddhist and Jain monks.13 It appears that at least by the time of A†oka (middle of the third century BCE) †ramaña was used principally, if not exclusively, with reference to non-Brahmanical ascetics. The compound word †ramaña-bråhmaña is used in A†okan inscriptions to indicate the double class of religious people worthy of honor and donations.14 A century or so later the grammarian Pata∞jali uses the same phrase as an example to illustrate the rule of Påñini about compounds in which the component words refer to objects that are opposed to each other.15 The same compound is also used in the Påli Canon with a reference similar to that of the A†okan inscriptions.16 An examination of early Brahmanical texts, several of which in all likelihood predate A†oka,17 however, indicates that the clear distinction and even opposition between bråhmaña and †ramaña may have been a later semantic development possibly influenced by the appropriation of the latter term by non-Brahmanical sects such as Buddhism and Jainism. The Taittirœya Årañyaka belonging to the Black Yajurveda contains the earliest reference to †ramaña in Brahmanical literature: The våtara†ana seers (®ßi) were †ramañas and celibates (urdhvamanthinaΔ). The seers went to them in supplication, but they absconded, entering the Küßmåñ∂a verses one after another. (The seers) found them there by means of faith and austerity.18

In this text †ramaña is associated with three other terms: våtara†ana, ®ßi, and ürdhvamanthin. An examination of these may shed further light on the meaning of †ramaña in the early Brahmanical vocabulary. The term våtara†ana appears first in the ¥gvedic hymn (10.136) that celebrates an enigmatic figure called muni, a title applied in therefore, is one who labours towards an objective and å†rama was the process of doing so. Eventually the place where the †ramañas gathered was also called å†rama.” 13 For the Buddhist use of the term see Dutt 1960, 31—53. See also Pande 1978; Deo 1956; and Olivelle 1974. 14 See Edicts of A†oka, Rock Edicts 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13; Pillar Edict 7. 15 Påñini, Aß™ådhyåyœ, 4.9: yeßå∫ ca virodhaΔ †å†vatikaΔ. The rule establishes that a coordinative compound (dvandva) of words signifying animals between whom there is permanent enmity is declined in the singular. See Pata∞jali, Mahåbhåßya, I, p. 476, l. 9. 16 MN I, 285-86, 400, II, 54; AN I, 180, III, 228.; Jåt I, 57, 187. The two terms also appear in the Greek and Latin accounts of India: Majumdar 1960, 425—48. 17 The Taittirœya Årañyaka and the B®hadårañyaka Upanißad probably predate A†oka by at least a couple of centuries. The Dharmasütras of Baudhåyana and Gautama also are probably somewhat older than A†oka. Since writing this study I have revised my estimate of the relative and absolute dates of these texts: see Olivelle 2000 and 2005a. 18 TÅ 2.7: våtara†anå ha vå ®ßayaΔ †ramañå ürdhvamanthino babhüvus tån ®ßayo ’rtham åya∫s te nilåyam acara∫s te ’nupravi†uΔ küßmåñ∂åni tå∫s teßv anvavinda∞ chraddhayå ca tapaså ca. For a detailed discussion of this text see Malamoud 1977.

150

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

later literature to any holy or ascetic person, but whose original meaning is far from clear.19 He is given the epithet ke†in, “the longhaired one.” The very first verse regards him as participating in cosmic functions: “The long-haired one supports Agni and moisture, and heaven and earth. He is all sky to look upon. The long-haired one is called this light.” The long hair of the muni is mentioned seven times in the hymn. In the second verse the munis (now in the plural) are called våtara†anåΔ (“girdled with the wind”), and they are said to wear dirty clothes (malåΔ). Some scholars have seen in the term våtara†ana a reference to their naked condition; it would then be a synonym of the later term digambara (“sky-clad” = naked) commonly used with reference to ascetic nudity.20 It is, however, inconsistent for these men to be described in the same verse both as naked and as wearing dirty clothes. The term is more appropriately interpreted in the light of the munis’ association with the wind, a recurrent theme in the hymn. The second half of the verse in which the term appears reads: “They follow the wind’s swift course and go where the gods have gone before.” Other verses echo the same theme: (3): “we have pressed on into the wind”; (4): “The muni . . . flies through the atmosphere”; (5): He is “the steed of the wind and the friend of the wind”; (7): “The wind has churned for him.” Flying through the air and being carried by the force of the wind are characteristics of a muni’s state. When the term is interpreted within this context, “girdled with the wind” probably means that the munis’ garments are swirled or blown by the wind or that the wind swirled around their bodies, rather than that they went about naked. The third verse of the hymn states that the munis are unmaditå maunyena. The term unmadita, frequently used in later literature with reference to ascetic behavior,21 can refer to madness, intoxication, frenzy, or trance. The munis are thus intoxicated, frenzied, in a trance, or out of their mind as a result of or by the power of their “munihood.” This may indicate that their status as muni was closely associated with special psychic states or powers that they exhibited. “The prattle of the muni Aitasa” (aitasapralåpa) in the Aitareya Bråhmaña (7.33) also suggests the irrational quality of a muni’s trance. In the latter episode his son covers Aitasa’s mouth while he was prattling and remarks, “our father has gone out of his mind.” The munis are said to roam wild areas, to tread the path of beasts, 19 See Keith 1925, 402; Bhandarkar 1940, 53; Pande 1957, 258—61; Ghurye 1964, 11f; Singh 1972, 182—83. 20 Geldner (1951, III, 369, n. 2) remarks: “D.h. nackten.” Similar interpretations are given by Ghurye 1964, 12; Pande 1978, 23—25; Malamoud 1977, 73. Såyaña, on the contrary, in his commentary on this verse, explains it as a patronymic: “sons of Våtara†ana.” It is doubtful that the term designates a class within the ¥gvedic context. 21 See, for example, JåbU 69: anunmattå unmattavad åcarantaΔ —“although they are sane, they behave like madmen.” The NpvU (154) says that an ascetic “acts like a fool, a lunatic, or a goblin” (bålonmattapi†åcavat).

The Semantic History of å†rama

151

Gandharvas, and Apsarases. They drink from the same cup as Rudra, a god associated with asceticism and the wilderness.22 By the time of the Taittirœya Årañyaka, however, the meaning of the term våtara†ana appears to have undergone some changes. The author of this text uses the term no longer as an adjective but as a noun denominating a class of ®ßis.23 In an earlier passage the same text (TÅ 1.23) describes how three classes of ®ßis —Aruña, Ketu, and Våtara†ana— originated from the flesh that fell off when Prajåpati shook his body after he had performed austerities (tapas). The ®ßis (“seers”) are regarded as the founding fathers of the Brahmanical tradition. They discovered the knowledge contained in the Veda as well as in all other branches of learning. This title is one of the highest honors that the authors of Brahmanical texts bestow on a person. Its use here indicates that the Våtara†anas were considered to have belonged to that elite class of Brahmanical ancestors. It is highly significant, therefore, that the terms †ramaña and ürdhvamanthin are used to describe them. The latter term is clearly an adjective qualifying ®ßi. The ambiguity of the term manthin makes the meaning of the compound word unclear. Manthin can refer to the penis as well as to the sperm (Malamoud 1977, 73). If it refers to the penis, the compound means “ithyphallic.” It would then be a synonym of ürdhvaliõga, the more common term in later literature, and would confirm the munis’ relationship to the ithyphallic god Rudra-‡iva already hinted at in ¥V 10.136.7. If, on the other hand, manthin means sperm, the compound means “one who retains his sperm.” It would then be a synonym of the more common ürdhvaretas. In either case, however, the adjective appears to indicate that the Våtara†ana ®ßis practiced sexual control of some kind. This does not necessarily imply, however, that they practiced total continence or celibacy.24 Now the syntax of this passage clearly demands that †ramaña should have the same syntactical function as ürdhvamanthin; both should be taken as adjectives that describe the seers. Those who interpret †ramaña to indicate a class of ascetics to which the seers belong are assigning to this term a meaning derived from other, and possibly 22 The information on the muni in other early vedic texts is extremely meager. The ¥V 8.17.14 (= SV I.275) calls Indra “the friend of munis,” and the ¥V 7.56.8 says that the wind roars like a muni. The AV 8.6.17 lists “muni’s hair” among the evil ones exorcised from a woman. In verse 5 of the same hymn an asura (“demon”) is called ke†œ (“long-haired”). See also AV 7.74.1; Bloomfield 1899, 98; Malamoud 1977, 73. 23 The point the TÅ text (2.7) wants to make is not that these munis were girdled with the wind, but that the Våtara†ana class of munis were †ramañas and ürdhvamanthins. Malamoud’s (1977, 72) translation —“Les ceinturés de vent étaient des ®ßi sramanes pleins de continence”— does not take into account this change in meaning of the term or its use as a class name earlier in the text. Såyaña (on TÅ) with greater perspicacity takes it as a patronymic and refers to the earlier chapter of the text that distinguishes the three classes. 24 This interpretation is made by Malamoud 1977, 72, when he translates the term as “pleins de continence.” See also D. H. Sharma 1939, 19.

152

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

later, contexts.25 The meaning of this term, moreover, should not be simply assumed to be the same as in these later ascetic contexts. We need to search for its meaning within the context of the Vedic use of the related terms √†ram and †rama. ‡ramaña in that context obviously means a person who is in the habit of performing †rama. Far from separating these seers from the Vedic ritual tradition, therefore, †ramaña places them right at the center of that tradition. Those who see them as non-Brahmanical, anti-Brahmanical, or even non-Aryan precursors of later sectarian ascetics are drawing conclusions that far outstrip the available evidence.26 The use of the title ®ßi, moreover, demonstrates that the Våtara†anas were not only regarded as Brahmins but also as part of the elite group of mythical ancestors who were the founders of the Brahmanical tradition. The use of the term †ramaña to describe them, however, indicates that they were a group of special people given to practices and a life style far from common. Taken together with the term våtara†ana and its historical link to the muni, we may not be too wrong in concluding that the adjective †ramaña referred to their uncommonly strenuous way of life. We come across this term also in a text of the White Yajurveda, the B®hadårañyaka Upanißad, generally regarded as one of the earliest of the Upanißads. Describing the state of deep sleep in which there are no dreams or desires and in which the individual is in the embrace of the self, the Upanißad declares: Here a father is not a father, a mother is not a mother, worlds are not worlds, gods are not gods, and Vedas are not Vedas. Here a thief is not a thief, an abortionist is not an abortionist, a Cåñ∂åla is not a Cåñ∂åla, a Paulkasa is not a Paulkasa,27 a †ramaña is not a †ramaña, and a tåpasa is not a tåpasa. (BU 4.3.22)

In this passage the two terms †ramaña and tåpasa are clearly nouns denoting classes of people, just as the other words of the list. It is unclear, however, whether these two terms refer to well-established and identifiable groups, in the same way as do, for example, the terms gods, Vedas, and Cåñ∂ålas, or whether they indicate broad categories into which individuals fall because of their behavior, as in the case of thieves and abortionists. I prefer to interpret them in the latter sense, which corresponds to the understanding of †rama and tapas in the vedic literature, than to read into them the later classification of ascetics into hermits (tåpasa) and wandering 25

See, for example, Malamoud 1977, 73; D. H. Sharma 1939, 19. For such interpretations, see Bhandarkar 1940, 53; Chakraborti 1973, 14; Barua 1921, 242; Chanda 1934, 98; D. H. Sharma 1939, 18—20; Pande 1978. 27 A Cåñ∂åla is an outcaste at the lowest end of the social hierarchy. Even his touch pollutes an upper-caste person. A Paulkasa is a similar social outcaste, the offspring of a low-caste father and an upper-caste mother. 26

The Semantic History of å†rama

153

ascetics.28 It is clear, however, that as in the Taittirœya passage, so here too †ramañas belong to the Brahmanical tradition. The relationship of †ramaña to the Vedic ritual tradition is underscored by the use of the related term †råmañaka in the Dharmasütras with reference to the sacred fire of a hermit. The expression †råmañakenågnim ådhåya (“having installed the fire according to the †råmañaka procedure”) occurs in three Sütras.29 Contrary to Bhler, it is clear that †råmañaka does not refer to a text but to a special procedure for establishing the sacred fire.30 The Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra uses the compound word †råmañakågni where †råmañaka appears to be the designation of the hermit’s fire rather than of the procedure for its establishment.31 The Vaikhånasa also contains a description of the procedure for installing the †råmañaka fire, although it is highly unlikely that the authors of the early Sütras had in mind the procedure described in this rather late text. The significant point for our discussion, however, is that the Dharma texts use this term not only within the context of what is obviously a Brahmanical institution but also with specific reference to the ritual fire and the ritual activity of a hermit. This relationship between †ramaña and ritual activities is further confirmed by the Baudhåyana ‡rautasütra (16.30), which, in describing a sacrificial rite of munis, refers to the performer of this sacrifice as †ramaña.32 From the use of †ramaña in the early Brahmanical literature we can draw the following conclusions. The term is used predominantly 28 ‡a∫kara, for example, in his commentary on this passage interprets the former as a sa∫nyåsin and the latter as a vånaprastha. It is always a temptation to read earlier texts in the light of later classificatory schemes in imitation of the commentators, a temptation that historians must clearly guard against. The terms †rama and tapas are often coupled in early texts to refer to two closely related sets of activities. The derivative nouns, †ramaña and tåpasa, very likely are similarly coupled in this passage. 29 BDh 2.11.15; GDh 3.27; VaDh 9.10. 30 At GDh 3.27 and VaDh 9.10 Bhler translates †råmañakena as “according to the (rule of the) ‡råmañaka (Sütra),” whereas at BDh 2.11.15 he translates it as “according to the ‡råmañaka (rule).” Bhler probably followed the explanations of Maskarin and Haradatta (on GDh 3.27) who take the term to refer to the “Vaikhånasa Treatise” (vaikhånasa†åstra). Govinda Svåmin (on BDh 2.11.15) more accurately explains: †råmaño nåmådhånavidhir asti vaikhånasa†åstre, tenågnim ådhåya —“in the Vaikhånasa Treatise there is a procedure named †råmaña for establishing a fire; having established the fire according to that . ” See also MBh 1.81.12; 12.9.11; 12.21.15; 15.25.13; 15.35.4. 31 VkhDh 1.6,7; 2.1, 4, 5. See also VkhG 1.8. At the offering of clarified butter (åghåra) in the †råmañaka fire, special mantras are recited. These are given in the Vaikhånasa Sa∫hitå and they include the phrase †råmañakayaj∞am åvåhayåmi —“I invite the †råmañaka sacrifice.” See Caland’s translation of the VkhDh 8.6, p. 188—89. The Ågnive†ya G®hyasütra (2.7.10), again a rather late work, uses the term †ramaña with reference to this fire. 32 The Mahåbhårata (12.21.14) contains the expression vidhinå †råmañena (“according to the †råmaña rule”) with reference to the manner in which a king should live in a forest after he has abdicated in favor of his son. We can also find instances in the epic literature where the term †ramaña is used with reference to a variety of Brahmanical ascetics: Råm 1.1.46; 1.13.8; 3.69.19; 3.70.7; 4.18.31 (where the reference is uncertain); MBh 12.50.18; 13.135.104 (where it is one of Vißñu’s epithets). It is uncertain whether the naked †ramaña in MBh 1.3.136 is a Brahmin.

154

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

in an adjectival sense to describe a special way of life of certain seers, although the literature does not provide details of that life. It is reasonable to assume, however, that this mode of life was considered in some way extraordinary and that it incorporated the ritual exertions indicated by the term †rama. The term in its use in the Brahmanical documents, however, implies no opposition to either Brahmins or householders; in all likelihood it did not refer to an identifiable class of people, much less to ascetic groups as it does in later literature. 9.3. ņrama as a Place and as a Way of Life Ancient Indian literature reveals two meanings of the term å†rama. The first is that of a residence where holy people live and perform religious austerities. When it refers to such a residence, the term is commonly translated as “hermitage.” This is by far its most common meaning; it is so used in Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jain literary sources, as well as in what might be called non-religious texts such as drama, poetry, and fables. The second meaning of the term is that of a religious or holy way of life. The latter is, in all likelihood, a technical usage, as it occurs exclusively in Brahmanical literature and mainly within the context of the å†rama system. Although there appears to be a scholarly consensus that å†rama refers to a place or a mode of life associated with religious exertion,33 there is a minority opinion which takes å†rama to mean a place of rest.34 Under this hypothesis the prefix “å” would have to be construed as the strong vowel grade (v®ddhi) of the privative prefix “a”. ‡rama, moreover, would have to be taken in its first meaning, namely fatigue, which has no religious connotation. According to this hypothesis, therefore, å†rama is derived from a-†rama (“lack of fatigue”). The Råmåyaña (4.13.16) appears to support this derivation when it calls the hermitage (å†rama) of the SaptajanåΔ sages “a place that destroys fatigue” (†ramanå†ana).35 In all likelihood, however, the poet is here only attempting to draw a picture of one aspect of a hermitage, the peace and quiet of its surroundings and inhabitants, by the use of what I would call “phonetic etymology,” a frequent practice in Indian literature, often amounting to nothing more than a play on the phonetic similarity between words.36 If this were the original 33 Gonda 1960—63, I, 287, n. 11; Sprockhoff 1976, 5; Winternitz 1927, 227; D. H. Sharma 1939, 14—15; Deussen 1909, 128; Rhys Davids 1903, 249; Kane 1962—75, II: 425. 34 Macdonell and Keith 1912, I, 68, translate it as “resting place,” and they are followed by Prabhu 1954, 83. Miller and Wertz (1976, 6) more explicitly regard the word as a negative: “ņrama, the negative of the Sanskrit root †ram (to exert oneself), means ‘a place of peace.’” Strictly it could not be the negative, since the privative suffix is not “å” but the short “a”. 35 A similar expression occurs also in the MBh 3.82.*423: å†rama∫ †rama†okavinå†anam —“an å†rama that destroys fatigue and sorrow.” 36 Quite frequently Indian authors draw etymological relationships between words that have phonetic similarities. They then proceed to uncover semantic equivalences based

The Semantic History of å†rama

155

meaning it is difficult to explain how the term could have been used with reference to religious modes of life which the tradition considers as entailing ceaseless effort and toil.37 The Indian grammatical tradition, moreover, clearly considers the suffix to be the particle “å” rather than the privative.38 The exact modification of meaning that the prefix “å” imparts to the term †rama, however, is unclear. The modification is certainly not as radical as, for example, when this prefix is used before verbs of motion.39 Indeed, outside the lexicons I have not found a single example of the prefix “å” used with a verbal form of √†ram.40 The compound occurs only in the nominal form å†rama and in its derivatives such as å†ramin. The only explanation of the prefix “å” to be found among commentators is that it indicates emphasis and intensity.41 The lexicographers, moreover, are unanimous in explaining å†rama as religious exertion. ņrama, we may conclude, refers to religious exertion. The term, however, is used in ancient Indian literature with two distinct but related meanings: it refers to both a residence for and a mode of life devoted to religious exertion. Which of these is the root meaning from which the other is derived? Winternitz (1926, 227) gives priority to the latter: on such phonetic etymologies. This is clearly a pedagogical strategy, and the authors’ intent is not to teach etymologies but to draw out what they regard as the innermost and the most significant meaning of a term. Given the advances made by Indian grammarians, it is quite likely that these authors usually know the grammatically correct etymologies of the terms whose meanings they seek to elucidate through phonetic equivalences. 37 Those who wish to exalt the householder often use the argument that the householder’s life is far more difficult (dußkara) than those of the other å†ramas: MBh 12.20.6— 14; 12.23.6; 12.261.58. Renouncers have an easy life (†ramasyoparama: MBh 12.261.10), whereas the householders toil (†rama: MBh 12.261.59). See also MDh 2.168 where †rama as “religious exertion or toil” is used probably with reference to the å†ramas. 38 The term is derived from å + √†ram by adding the gha∞ suffix (= a), according to Påñini, Aß™ådhyåyœ, 3.3.19. The v®ddhi of the radical vowel, which should normally occur here (e.g., åråma, åvåsa) is suppressed according to Påñini, ibid., 7.3.34. See also the lexicographical references in the following notes. 39 In verbs of motion the prefix changes the direction of the motion, thus imparting a meaning opposite to that of the simple verb: e.g., √gam -“to go,” and å-√gam - “to come”; √då -“to give,” and å-√då -“to receive.” 40 The verb å†råmyati is used by lexicographers to explain the etymology of å†rama, but it is probably an artificial term serving a grammatical purpose: asmi∫† catuß™ake å†råmyanti tapasyanty asminn å†rame pratyeka∫ vartate —“in these four they toil, they do austerities; in this å†rama a person lives, in one at a time” (Kßœrasvåmin on Amarasi∫ha’s Amarako†a 2.7.3). Bhånuji Dœkßita (on Amarako†a 2.7.3—4) indicates the double meaning as place and way of life: å†råmyanty atra anena vå —“they toil here or by means of it.” Haradatta (on ÅpDh 2.21.1) appears to follow the lexicographers: å†råmyanty eßu †reyo ’rthinaΔ purußå ity å†ramåΔ —“å†ramas get their meaning by the fact that people who seek bliss toil in them.” The Gañapå™ha (on Påñini, Aß™ådhyåyœ, 2.4.31, no. 117) lists the term among those that can be declined either as a masculine or as a neuter noun. See also Amarasi∫ha’s Amarako†a 2.7.4; Durgasi∫ha, Liõgånu†åsana, 66. 41 Bhånuji Dœkßita on Amarasi∫ha’s Amarako†a 2.7.3—4 explains: å samantåc chramo ’tra —“there is toil all around (or completely) here.” A similar explanation of “å” in the term ånœla (“dark”)is given by Mallinåtha in his commentary on Kålidåsa’s Raghuva∫†a, 3.8.

156

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

The word å†rama (from the same root †ram as †ramaña) probably denoted at first “the religious exertion” of †ramañas, ascetics and forest dwellers, and consequently it also received the meaning “place for religious exertion,” “hermitage.”

D. H. Sharma (1939, 14) agrees with Winternitz. Sprockhoff42 also gives priority to a mode of life. According to him, however, the term originally referred to the life of a householder, and he strongly —and properly— objects to Winternitz’s association of å†rama with the life of †ramañas. The evidence, however, appears to point the other way; the more basic meaning of å†rama, I believe, is that of a residence for religious exertion. The term is used with reference to a mode of life mainly within the confines of the å†rama system.43 The latter should be regarded, therefore, as a technical use. When the term is used outside that context it invariably refers to a residence. In the B®haddevatå (5.64; 6.99), in the Gopatha Bråhmaña (1.2.8), and with great frequency in the two epics and in Sanskrit belles lettres and fables, the term is used with reference to the residence of a special type of Brahmin.44 This, moreover, is the only meaning of the term in all non-Brahmanical literature, including the Påli Canon. It is difficult to see how such a common and broad use of the term could have been derived from its more technical and narrow use. The presumption clearly has to be that the latter must be a secondary and derived meaning. Within the Indian context, however, the distinction between these two meanings and the priority of the one over the other are not issues as important as they might appear to be. Ancient Indian thought closely associated a definite pattern of behavior or conduct with a specific place or region. A good example of this tendency is the claim that the customs prevailing in a region of north-central India called Åryåvarta (“region of the Åryas”) are to be regarded as authoritative on questions of dharma.45 Indeed, even the Indian grammarians defined the cultured elites (†iß™a) who spoke proper Sanskrit “by their place of residence (nivåsa) and their way of life (åcåra). And that way of life is found only in Åryåvarta.”46 Manu (MDh 2.22—24) 42 Sprockhoff 1976, 5, 54; 1979, 412 n. 139; 1981, 82. Deussen (1909, 128) gives the two meanings and enigmatically remarks: “It may be doubted which of the two meanings is the original.” 43 I shall discuss below the few occurrences alluded to by Sprockhoff and Meyer in support of the hypothesis that the term first referred to the life of a householder. 44 In the Råmåyaña I have been able to find only one instance (2.98.58) where the term is used with reference to a mode of life, that too clearly within the context of the å†rama system. Residence is, of course, the common meaning of the term in later Sanskrit belles lettres (kåvya) and drama. 45 BDh 1.1.2.9—12; VaDh 1.8—15. With reference to the Brahmåvarta, a similarly holy region, Manu (MDh 2.20) advises: “All people on earth should lean their respective mores from a Brahmin born in that country.” 46 Pata∞jali, Mahåbhåßya on Påñini, Aß™ådhyåyœ, 6.3.109 (Kielhorn edition, III, 174). On this question see the interesting comments of Deshpande 1985: 131—36.

The Semantic History of å†rama

157

goes as far as to advise the Åryas to live only in that region. A tale containing a discussion between a jackal and a tiger recorded in the Mahåbhårata (12.112) is instructive with regard to the common Indian association between proper conduct and proper place. The jackal, whose normal place of residence is a cemetery, a place universally regarded as impure, argues against that common association between virtue and geography. One can attain contemplation even in a cemetery, the jackal argues, while an å†rama (probably a hermitage) is not necessarily a mark of righteousness. One kills a Brahmin in an å†rama, One gives a cow in a non-å†rama. Does the former not constitute a sin? And that gift, has it been given in vain? (MBh 12.112.14)

Given the close association between place of habitation and way of life, it did not require a giant semantic leap to call by the name å†rama the life of those who lived in å†ramas. Conversely, we find that the modes of life of those belonging to the å†ramas of student, householder, and hermit are often referred to by their respective residences: teacher’s house, home, and forest or wilderness.47 The verb √vas (“to dwell”), moreover, is used regularly with reference to the pursuance of an å†rama, reinforcing again the association between conduct and place.48 The Mahåbhårata (3.134.10), for example, calls the four å†ramas “four houses” (niketana). 9.4. The Original Meaning of ņrama Irrespective of whether its root meaning is residence or mode of life, the crucial question for our study is whose residence or way of life was at first characterized as å†rama. On the basis of the available evidence it is not possible to give a precise or certain answer to that question. It is even unclear whether during the earliest period of its use the term referred to an identifiable class of people. It is nevertheless possible, I believe, to answer the question in a general way by showing what the term certainly did not mean and, more positively, by indicating the types of people and activities that the term may have comprehended. In what follows I expect to demonstrate that (1) å†rama did not refer to ascetic habitats or modes of life, if by ascetic we understand values and institutions that oppose the 47 ÅpDh 2.21.1 calls the first simply åcåryakulam (“teacher’s family or house”) and the MBh 12.174.8(2) uses the expression gurukulavåsaΔ (“dwelling at the teacher’s house”). Manu (MDh 4.1; 6.33) speaks of living at the teacher’s house, at home, and in the forest. The householder’s state is often called g®hå†rama (“house-å†rama”): MDh 6.1; ViDh 33.2; 58.1; 59.1, 27, 28, 29; MBh 1.3.83; 3.2.59; 12.61.4,12; 12.66.18; 12.184.17. See also YDh 3.56; JåbU 64.3; MDh 6.33. 48 VaDh 7.3 (åvaset); MDh 4.1 (ußitvå gurau); 5.169 (g®he vaset); 6.1 (vane vaset); ViDh 51.66 (g®he guråv arañye vå nivasan); MBh 12.235.1; 12.313.17—20.

158

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Brahmanical value system centered around the householder; (2) on the contrary, å†rama is fundamentally a Brahmanical concept and refers to habitats and life styles dedicated to the principal obligations of a Brahmanical householder; (3) originally and outside the context of the å†rama system, nevertheless, the term did not refer to simply any householder but to exceptional Brahmins who dedicated their lives in an extraordinary manner to religious exercise (†rama), living, in all likelihood, in areas somewhat removed from villages and towns. There is no evidence to support Winternitz’s (1927, 227) view that å†rama “denoted at first ‘the religious exertion’ of †ramañas, ascetics and forest dwellers.” The etymological connection between the two terms is clearly insufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion. ņrama is fundamentally a Brahmanical institution and, as we shall see, it is depicted as such even in non-Brahmanical sources. We have seen, moreover, the use of the term †ramaña within strictly Brahmanical contexts. We have also seen the use of the term †råmañika with reference to the ritual fire of Brahmanical hermits whose residence many sources identify as å†rama.49 In the epics, too, residents of å†ramas are occasionally identified as †ramaña.50 These, however, are not sufficient grounds for concluding that å†rama originally meant the residence or life style of Brahmanical †ramañas, if this is taken to mean Brahmanical ascetics living celibate lives in the wilderness. Indeed, within the Brahmanical context both †ramaña and å†rama are associated with the activity central to the Brahmanical view of dharma, namely the sacrifice. One reason why scholars have attempted to find a connection between å†rama and anti-Brahmanical ascetic institutions is the prevalent but mistaken view that the å†rama system was created by Brahmins to stem the tide of the ascetic movement by coopting into the Brahmanical system the very institutions that opposed it (Heesterman 1964, 24). If å†rama was an ascetic concept, the argument goes, then its use with reference to the Brahmanical householder is meant to indicate that a householder’s life is as good as an ascetic’s. The very opposite appears to have been the case. The authors of the å†rama system were coopting a good Brahmanical term to indicate that the ascetic life was as good as the ideal Brahmanical life expressed by the term å†rama (Olivelle 1993, 94—101). Our discussion of the meaning of †rama also supports the association of å†rama with the central values and activities of Brahmanism, values and activities that form the basis of the Brahmanical theology of the householder. In several of his recent writings Sprockhoff51 has BDh 3.3.20; VkhDh 2.2, 3. Råm 1.1.46; 1.13.8; 3.69.19; 3.70.7; MBh 12.150.18; 13.135.104. See also MBh 1.3.136, where the reference may be to a non-Brahmanical ascetic. 51 Sprockhoff 1976, 1979, 1981, 1984. On the interpretation of v®ddhå†rama (“å†rama of the aged”), see Sprockhoff 1987, 250. 49

50

The Semantic History of å†rama

159

argued strongly for this position. According to Sprockhoff, å†rama originally referred to the life of a householder. This view was already put forward by Meyer (1927, 316—17) in his discussion of the parißad (“Brahmanical council”). One problem with Meyer’s and Sprockhoff’s interpretations is that they take å†rama to refer to a householder’s life in general and not merely to extraordinary householders who dedicated their life totally to the Brahmanical ideals. I think this is too broad an application. If such a generic use was current in the Brahmanical tradition we should expect to find it in discussions about marriage and about the duties of a householder. As we have noted, it is absent in the early Bråhmaña texts, and even the Dharmasütras never use it in their discussion of the householder outside the narrow confines of the å†rama system. The term is conspicuous by its absence in the early G®hyasütras, which deal specifically with domestic rites including marriage. If it was a common term for a Brahmanical householder, moreover, we may expect to find it with that meaning in Buddhist and other nonBrahmanical sources. The very newness of the term å†rama argues against the contention that it meant simply the life of a householder. Neologisms are rarely coined to refer to well-known ideas or institutions; they are mostly resorted to when people are groping for a way to express something new, or at the very least, a new aspect of something old. It makes more sense, therefore, to see it as a term coined to indicate the extraordinary life and dwelling adopted by some exceptional Brahmins. The evidence from Brahmanical and Buddhist sources, in fact, indicates that å†rama probably had just such a restricted meaning. It appears that the term was applied not to just any householder but to the place and/or life of a very special category of Brahmanical householders. These householders did not constitute a uniform category of people. There was, for example, quite an ancient distinction between Brahmins devoted to learning and scholarship (†rotriya) and those who performed household duties (g®hamedhin). The early literature on dharma also establishes distinctions between householders on the basis of their livelihood.52 It appears that those who were associated with the å†ramas constituted a similar special class different from common householders. The Påli term assama (Sk. å†rama) is used with some frequency in the Påli Canon. Given the uncertainty of the dates of the various texts that form that canon, it is difficult to draw accurate historical conclusions from the Påli usage of the term. A wide spectrum of texts in the Canon, however, use this term with a very similar, if not identical, meaning.53 This consistency may permit us to conclude that it JUB 2.225. See Heesterman 1964, 11; Sprockhoff 1984, 21—25. For a listing of these occurrences, see Critical Påli Dictionary, pp. 521—22, and Påli Tipi™aka∫ Concordance, p. 295. 52 53

160

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

must correspond at least roughly to the dominant meaning of the term also in the Brahmanical society to which these texts refer. Assama is used in the Påli Canon invariably with reference to a residence not of any Brahmin householder but of a special type of Brahmin. Such Brahmins are often, but not always, called ja™ila, indicating that they were distinguished by their matted hair.54 These assamas were located in the wilderness, that is in the uninhabited area outside a village or town.55 There are indications that they were located not far from a village; when Ånanda, for example, asks the Buddha to visit Rammaka’s assama after begging in the city of Såvatthi, he says that it is not very far (avidüra: MN I, 160). A constant feature of an assama is the presence of the sacred fire. Some texts speak of a fire stall in which the sacred fire was kept and ja™ilas are given the epithet “fire-worshipping.”56 A dominant feature of the life of these Brahmins, as depicted in the Påli sources, was the worship of the sacred fire. Furthermore, they did not always live solitary or celibate lives. We hear of families, possibly groups of related families, living in an assama. Sexual activity clearly took place within these communities. When Sela57 visits Keñiya, for example, and sees all the residents of the assama busy preparing a feast he thinks that there is going to be a marriage. The terms paññaku™œ and paññasålå (“hut made with leaves”), it appears, are used as equivalents of assama.58 Several Buddhist texts note that living in an assama was the normal life of the earliest Brahmins who were dedicated to holiness. The Brahmanical seers (®ßi, Påli isi) are said to have followed this mode of life. The term isipabbajja (“the ®ßi’s mode of going forth”) is used to indicate the undertaking of this mode of life. These holy ancestors are contrasted by the Buddhists with the unholy life of present-day Brahmins who live in villages (DN I, 104; III, 94). The Buddhist admiration for Brahmins living in assamas is clear. They were exempted, for example, from the probationary period (parivåsa) of four months prior to their initial admission into the Buddhist monastic order (Vin 1, 71). The story of the conversion of the three Kassapa brothers (Vin 1, 24—38), who were ja™ila Brahmins living in å†ramas, is probably intended to demonstrate the victory of the Buddha over the best that Bråhmañism had to offer. The encounter of the Buddha in the company of Uruvela Kassapa, the most senior of the three, with King Bimbisåra of Magadha is instruc54 Vin 1, 24—38; DN II, 339. The ja™ila manner of wearing the hair —either matted or braided— is closely associated with Brahmins. It is prescribed in ÅpDh 1.2.31-32 for even Brahmanical students. 55 DN II, 339. 56 See Vin 1, 71; DN II, 339; MN 1, 501. 57 See the Selasutta in SuNi p. 102—12; MN II, 146. For a variant of the story see Vin 1, 245. 58 See, for example, Jåt II, 283—85; MN II, 154—55; DN II, 339.

The Semantic History of å†rama

161

tive. Bimbisåra wonders aloud whether the Buddha has become Kassapa’s disciple or vice versa. Then follows the verse account of the Buddha’s question and Kassapa’s reply: What knowledge have you gained, O inhabitant of Uruvelå, that has induced you, who were renowned for your penances, to forsake your sacred fire? I ask you, Kassapa, this question: How is it that your fire sacrifice has become deserted? It is visible things and sounds, and also tastes, pleasures and woman that the sacrifices speak of; because I understood that whatever belongs to existence is filth, therefore I took no more delight in sacrifices and offerings.59

These verses highlight both the centrality of the fire sacrifice in the life of these Brahmanical holy men and the significance attached to its abandonment in Buddhist asceticism. The Buddhist accounts are corroborated by Brahmanical evidence. The B®haddevatå, which is assigned to the fifth century BCE,60 uses the term å†rama in two episodes. The first is the story of ‡yåvå†va (B®D 5.50—81), the son of the ®ßi Arcanånas and the grandson of the ®ßi Atri. All three are said to have lived in an å†rama (B®D 5.64). Arcanånas and ‡yåvå†va once went to king Rathavœti Dårbhya’s palace to perform a sacrifice for the king. When they saw the king’s daughter, ‡yåvå†va promptly fell in love with her, while Arcanånas, for his part, thought she would make a perfect daughter-in-law. The story ends with ‡yåvå†va marrying the king’s daughter. The second story is about a girl named Apålå, who is the daughter of Atri and lived in the å†rama of her father (B®D 6.99). Here it is the god Indra who falls in love with her and cures her skin disease.61 Several points of these stories are significant for our investigation. All these ®ßis, who lived in å†ramas, were married and had children; indeed, Arcanånas used the occasion of the sacrifice to obtain a good wife for his son. They not only performed the fire rituals, but also officiated at sacrifices for important people in society. The two epics are also full of references to and descriptions of å†ramas,62 the inhabitants of which were married and had children. The sacred fire and fire rituals were the major focus of their lives. One point clearly emerges from the above discussion: the inhabitants of these å†ramas are depicted as following a life style radically different from that of forest hermits (vånaprastha) described in later Vin 1, 36. Rhys Davids and Oldenberg’s translation, p. 138. See, however, the new study of Tokunaga (1997), which dates parts of the B®haddevatå to a much later period. 61 The Gopatha Bråhmaña is the only one to use å†rama. There also it is a place of residence of ®ßis. The Gopatha, however, according to Keith (TS, tr. I, p. ciii), “is certainly the latest of the Bråhmañas.” 62 For a long description of å†ramas in the Råmåyaña see Vyas 1967, 266—73. 59 60

162

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

literature within the context of the å†rama system. The latter were celibates who often assumed this life style only in their old age. The confusion that one sees in the epic and later literature is caused by the conflation of several types of eremitical asceticism into a single institution. At some point, moreover, the å†rama mode of life must have become idealized, an ideal that was projected back to the ancient ®ßis, the founding fathers of the Brahmanical tradition. What is significant for our study, however, is that the life of the å†rama-dwelling Brahmins was much closer to that expected of all Brahmanical householders than to later ascetic modes of life, and that in its early usage å†rama defined more the ideal life of a Brahmin householder than that of an ascetic. This is the real significance of Meyer’s and Sprockhoff’s insights. This meaning, furthermore, closely follows the meaning of †rama in the Vedic literature, lending further support to its priority. In this context, Sprockhoff’s63 explanation of the compound words å†ramapåra and atyå†ramin makes much better sense than those of earlier scholars who attempted to explain them within the context of the å†rama system. The former term occurs in the Laghu-Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad (15.2). With reference to a Brahmin who has maintained the Vedic fires and who has recovered after being at the point of death, the text states: svastho vå†ramapåra∫ gaccheyam iti —“or if he recovers he resolves: ‘I wish to go beyond the å†rama’.” The reference here is not to the å†rama system. What is meant here, as Sprockhoff (1976, 54) points out, is that the person decides to go beyond his å†rama, namely the life of a householder, or more generally the life of sacrifice and procreation. A similar “going beyond” is also the likely meaning of the term atyå†ramin, which occurs in the ‡vetå†vatara Upanißad (6.21); the term refers to people who have gone beyond the householder’s life and not to enlightened people who are not comprehended by the å†rama system.64 In these compounds we already note the expansion of the semantic range of å†rama to include all Brahmin householders and not just the exceptional ones living in å†ramas, an expansion that is evident also in the å†rama system. Even in later times we observe the use of similar compounds that assumes å†rama to be the life of a householder. For example, Vasiß™ha 63 See Sprockhoff 1976, 5, 54; 1979, 412, n. 139; 1981, 82. In the Laghu-Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad (18.1) the term å†ramin is used to describe a student who has completed his vedic study. It is unclear whether this use supports Sprockhoff’s thesis, because in the same passage at 17.12, for example, studentship is called å†rama. Sprockhoff’s general interpretation of these terms, however, is plausible, even if å†rama may not have been a common term for all householders. 64 See Deussen 1906, 368; Winternitz 1927, 217; Weinrich 1929, 83; Silburn in her edition of the ‡vU (Paris, 1948), pp. 1, 75. The term occurs also in the Kaivalya Upanißad, 24. The same Upanißad (5) uses the related term atyå†ramastha. In later literature, this term is used regularly to mean “beyond the å†ramas” with reference to the highest type of renouncers or to enlightened renouncers. But in those contexts å†rama does not mean merely the householder’s state but the usual four å†ramas.

The Semantic History of å†rama

163

(VaDh 17.52) uses the expression å†ramåntaragatåΔ to refer to people who have proceeded to an å†rama different from that of the householder. The compound å†ramåntara is used with the meaning “other than a householder” in the Mahåbhårata and even by medieval authors such as ‡a∫kara and Kumårila.65 This is clearly a vestige of the old meaning ossified in a common compound and further corroborates our conclusion that the term in its earliest usage must have referred to some type of householder. What conclusions then can we draw from the above discussion with regard to the original meaning of å†rama? Two uncertainties make any conclusion extremely tentative. First, we are uncertain about the dates of both the Buddhist and the Brahmanical documents. Second, we are not sure whether the documents we have examined reflect the actual historical conditions prevalent at the time of their composition, or whether they are describing an ideal type according to established literary canons. With all these caveats, however, I feel we can draw a few safe conclusions with regard to the original meaning of å†rama. (1) It referred to the place and by extension the life of exceptional Brahmins. (2) The life of these Brahmins centered around the maintenance of and the offering of oblations in the sacred fire. They are also depicted as performing tapas (“austerities”), a concept that we saw was closely associated with †rama. (3) They were married and had children. The presence of a wife is absolutely necessary for the performance of the fire sacrifice. (4) They lived apart from normal society, even though it is not altogether certain whether the å†ramas were always located in the wilderness.

65 MBh 12.63.21; 12.66.3; 12.308.44; ‡a∫kara on VeS 3.4.17—20 (where the compound is used frequently); on BU 4.5.15 (p. 717); on TU 1.12 (p. 41); Kumårila, Tantravårtika on Pms 1.3.4 (p. 110).

10. Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads*

10.1. The Nature and Purpose of Renunciation In examining the contents of the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads, the first, and possible the most significant, issue I want to explore is the Brahmanical self-understanding of the meaning and nature of renunciation. What is the purpose of renunciation? What theological definition of a renouncer’s status does the Brahmanical tradition provide? How does that definition affect other significant elements of the Brahmanical religious world? The Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads do not deal with these issues explicitly. A well-developed theology of renunciation, however, underlies their discussions of such central issues as the rite of renunciation and the rules governing a renouncer’s life. It is this theology that I want to explore in this section, drawing on information provided by these and other Brahmanical texts. A point that we need to bear in mind as we explore the Brahmanical theology of renunciation, however, is that the very institution of renunciation as a single entity was the creation of the same theology (Sprockhoff 1976, 288—95). There were many lifestyles and institutions of holiness, old age, and separation from society in ancient India. Evidence of these institutions is found in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads themselves. The Laghu-Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad, for example, contains a rite for withdrawal from society in the case of a person who recovers from a lifethreatening illness. Such a withdrawal was probably connected with the rite in extremis described in several major Upanißads.1 Within Bråhmañism many of these institutions were conflated into the single yet * Originally published in Olivelle 1992, 58-97. On this rite, called sa∫pradåna or sa∫pratti: see Sprockhoff 1976: 52—66; 1979: 386—98; 1987. 1

166

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

complex institution of renunciation. It is this theologically constituted institution that is referred to in the Brahmanical literature by the technical term sa∫nyåsa, literally meaning “discarding” or “abandonment.” The term sa∫nyåsa, as I have explained in detail elsewhere,2 is a rather new term in the Sanskrit vocabulary. It is absent not only in the ancient Vedic texts but also in the Buddhist and Jain vocabularies. The term is not only new, but its usage is strictly limited to the Brahmanical tradition. It is a mistake, therefore, to assume that the term sa∫nyåsa, common as it may be in medieval and modern India, was ever a generic term for the way of life of wandering mendicants. In its earliest usage, moreover, the term referred specifically to a single aspect of that life, namely the abandonment of ritual activity, which as we shall presently see, became the central and defining characteristic of Brahmanical renunciation. In its early usage the object of sa∫nyåsa is often explicitly stated, and it is invariably rites. The term is, by extension, applied to the ritual process by which rites are abandoned and occurs in the central element of that process, the ritual formulation of renunciation. The very semantic history of the term most commonly used to designate Brahmanical renunciation, therefore, points to the centrality of the ritual and its abandonment in the Brahmanical understanding of renunciation. The general framework and the basic categories of Brahmanical theology were ritual. As the ritual is at the center of Brahmanical religion and theology, so the absence of the ritual, as the semantic history of the term sa∫nyåsa points out, becomes the central element of the Brahmanical theology and practice of renunciation. At the same time, however, renunciation as such and several elements of renouncer’s life are viewed by the same theology as the fulfillment and perfection of the ritual and as producing powerful ritual effects both in the renouncer and in those related to him. This paradoxical and often ambivalent attitude toward renunciation underlies many of the discussions of renunciation we encounter in these Upanißads. 10.1.1 Renunciation as a Non-Ritual State The basic assumption of most Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads is that renunciation essentially consists in the abandonment of ritual activities; renunciation is a non-ritual state. The Åruñi, one of the oldest of these Upanißads, opens with Åruñi’s question to Prajåpati: “By what means, O Lord, can I give up rites completely?” The answer to this question lies in the procedure of renunciation: one can eliminate the need for rites and assume a non-ritual state only by going through the proper ritual process for abandoning rites. Both this question and the elements of the renunciatory rite that we will presently examine presuppose that the person who intends to 2

See Olivelle 1981 included as chapter 8 of this volume.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

167

renounce is the typical Brahmin adult: that is, a man who is married, who maintains the sacred fires, and who offers regular sacrifices.3 Indeed, it is the fundamentally ritual nature of the Brahmanical religion that gives significance to the definition of renunciation as a nonritual state. To renounce rites, therefore, has significance only for a person who is qualified and obliged to perform rites.4 Thus the foundation of Brahmanical renunciation is the belief that at some point in an individual’s life the ritual religion can and must be transcended. This belief is based on the common Upanißadic doctrine systematically developed in the monistic theology of Advaita Vedånta, a theology that most of the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads subscribe to, that rites operate within and promote sa∫såra, the life bound to repeated births and deaths, and that the renunciation of rites is a necessary precondition for the acquisition of the liberating knowledge.5 The B®hat-Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad (272) puts it bluntly: People are bound by rites and liberated by knowledge. Wise ascetics, therefore, do not perform rites.

The Sanskrit word for rite is karma. This term, which literally means “action,” can and often does have a meaning broader than rite; it may refer to the entire spectrum of moral, physical, and mental activities of human beings. Karma is also a well-known concept in Indian speculations regarding the rebirth process. In that context it refers to the result or residue of human actions that determines an individual’s future lives; it is thus a central concept of Indian ethics. Within the Brahmanical tradition, however, the most common, the most basic, and the most significant dimension of karma is the ritual act. We have seen that in Brahmanical theology, rites are the most powerful and the most efficacious actions human beings can perform. They have the power to produce effects after the death of the performer; hence the oft-repeated saying that a person desirous of heaven should offer a sacrifice. When translated into the theology of sa∫såra, however, ritual acts, because of their very power and efficacy, become the principal karma that causes the continuation of the rebirth process.6 Within the Brahmanical theology of renunciation, consequently, the elimination of karma means principally the elimination of rites. 3 There are, of course, exceptions. People who are unmarried and even uninitiated, for example, are allowed to renounce if they are completely detached from the world (JåbU 64). The ideal-typical candidate for renunciation, however, remains the married householder. 4 This is one reason why Brahmanical renunciation disregards those who are not qualified to perform Vedic rites, such as ‡üdras, women, and people with moral and physical disabilities. There is, after all, no meaning or purpose in giving up what one is not entitled to or does not possess. 5 For a detailed discussion of this point, see ‡a∫kara’s commentary on the BU 3.5.1, translated in Olivelle 1986—87. 6 The concept of rite within the Brahmanical context, however, comprehends a much broader spectrum of human actions than the English term rite (see below note 12). The rit-

168

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

What a Brahmin renounces, therefore, is karma, not just any action but ritual actions. The Nåradaparivråjaka makes this point clear: Bathing, muttering prayers, divine worship, sacrifices, propitiatory rites, and rites such as the fire sacrifice do not apply to him, O Nårada, in this world. Neither do divine praise, rites for ancestors, pilgrimages, vows, categories such as right (dharma) and wrong (adharma), injunctions, and temporal activities. He shall abandon all rites and every worldly custom. (NpvU 197)

Consequently, the central elements of the rite of renunciation, as we shall see below, consist in the abandonment of key elements of the ritual life: sacred fires, fire drills, sacrificial implements, sacrificial string, topknot, and mantras. The lack of a sacred fire in particular is the hallmark of a renouncer. As the presence of a sacred fire in a home signals the householder’s allegiance to the ritual religion of society, so its absence represents the most telling symbol of a renouncer’s separation from that religion. He is called “a fireless man” (anagni), and his fireless condition is permanent. “Having renounced the fires,” one text declares, “let him not bring them back” (K†rU 40; LSaU 20). The fire drills that were used formerly to light the sacred fire, as well as the wooden sacrificial utensils such as spoons, cups, and pots, are burnt. Metal implements are given away. The sacrificial string is cut and discarded. The topknot is plucked out. A renouncer is expected to avoid every article or symbol associated with ritual activities. The non-ritual state of a renouncer underlies the prohibition against uttering svåhå or svadhå, the two exclamations that accompany offerings to the gods and ancestors, respectively, and against invitation and dismissal —a reference to the formal invitation addressed to gods or ancestors just prior to an offering and to their dismissal at its conclusion.7 Renouncers similarly give up the use of mantras, the ritual formulae that must accompany ritual offerings. The connection between rite and mantra is invariable; the one cannot exist without the other (NpvU 137—38). The Åruñi puts it plainly: “Thereafter [namely, after renunciation] let him function without mantras.”8 The abandonment of mantras is performed during the rite of renunciation. The Gåyatrœ, which is the most sacred mantra of Brahmanism and the first mantra to be imparted to a boy at initiation, is formally abandoned.9 ual dimension of the concept and law of karma is often overlooked by scholars. Indeed, the very automatic nature of that law closely resembles the operation of ritual acts. See Halbfass 1980; Tull 1989. 7 PhU 50-51; NpvU 149, 153. 8 ÅrU 6; see also TurU 242. 9 See ÅrU 6; NpvU 151, 166.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

169

The only mantra a renouncer recites is the sacred syllable O·, which is regarded as the audible manifestation of Brahman. A medieval text gives the following formal definition of renunciation (sa∫nyåsa): “Renunciation is the abandonment of rites known through injunctions —the †rauta and smårta, the permanent, occasional and optional— after reciting the Call (praißa).”10 Even though renunciation is thus defined as a negative state, as the abandonment of every type of ritual activity, the fact remains that renouncers continue to perform some actions. They are subject to rules and regulations, that is, they are subject to their particular dharma. Following the rules of their dharma, they perform activities distinctive to their state, such as begging, wearing particular types of clothes or no clothes at all, carrying a begging bowl, bearing a staff, and the like. Aren’t these ritual actions? The hermeneutical principles used by medieval exegetes who answered such objections are instructive and point to the special status that renunciation occupies among the Brahmanical institutions.11 From the viewpoint of Brahmanical hermeneutics, rites (karma) are defined as actions that are enjoined by positive injunctions (vidhi) found either in the Vedas or in the sm®tis.12 If renunciation is defined as the abandonment or the non-performance of rites, then the renunciatory mode of life cannot be the object of any positive injunction. Further, because the abandonment of prescribed rites can be legitimate only if their abandonment is scripturally authorized, renunciation must be the subject of negative injunctions, namely prohibitions (nißedha). Renouncers, therefore, do not perform rites because they are forbidden to do so. According to the Brahmanical hermeneutical tradition, the entire edifice of proper conduct (dharma) is founded on injunctions (that is, positive actions enjoined on a particular group of people) and on prohibitions (that is, actions that a group should avoid or abandon). Injunctive texts are called prav®tti†åstra (texts promoting action), and prohibitive texts are called niv®tti†åstra (texts promoting non-action). If renunciation is defined as a non-ritual state, then only the latter class of texts would apply to renouncers. 10 tatra sa∫nyåso nåma vidhito g®hœtånå∫ nityanaimittikakåmyasmårtakarmañå∫ praißamantra∫ samuccårya parityågaΔ. YPra 1.2. ‡rauta rites are those prescribed in the Vedas, while the smårta are those given in the sm®tis. For a discussion of this definition, see Olivelle 1975 included as chapter 4 in this volume. 11 For an analysis of the hermeneutical principles involved in the definition of renunciation, see Olivelle 1975 included as chapter 4 in this volume. 12 It is important to note that karma is defined as an action that is prompted by an injunction. Thus karma covers a broader spectrum of actions than its English counterpart rite. Actions such as brushing the teeth, bathing, eating, begging, wearing a particular garment, carrying a staff, and sleeping in a particular way are ritual actions within Brahmanical theology, so long as they are the subject of specific injunctions. The abandonment of karma by renouncers, therefore, should theoretically refer to all these types of activity.

170

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Yet renouncers continue to perform certain distinctive actions. Ku™œcakas, for example, wear sacrificial strings and carry triple staffs. Paramaha∫sas carry begging bowls. Some renouncers are expected to shave their heads at prescribed times. All are expected to beg their food daily at the proper time and according to prescribed rules. All these actions are performed legitimately by renouncers because they are the subject of clear and positive injunctions. The problem for the Brahmanical theologians is this: if renunciation is a negative state, how can these positive injunctions apply to renouncers, and how is it legitimate for renouncers to perform rites enjoined by those injunctions? The answer has two steps and applies rules of interpretation developed within the school of Brahmanical hermeneutics (mœmå∫så). The first step is based on the distinction between two types of injunctions: general (utsarga) and specific (apavåda or niyama). The second considers all positive rules governing a renouncer’s life as belonging to a particular class of injunctions called “exclusive specification” (parisa∫khyå). That renouncers should cease performing ritual acts is a general prohibition (utsarga). It is this general prohibition that defines their renunciatory status; they are renouncers because they fall under this general prohibition and, consequently, abandon ritual activities. The specific actions performed by some renouncers are the subject of “specific injunctions” (niyama). It is a common principle of Brahmanical hermeneutics that specific injunctions have greater force than and, therefore, set aside the provisions of general injunctions.13 The argument is that the ritual acts that some renouncers continue to perform are exceptions to the general rule. The question then is how such exceptions are possible without violating the very definition of renunciation as a non-ritual state. This is where the second step in the argument comes in. The specific rules that form these exceptions belong to a special category of injunctions known as “exclusive specification” (parisa∫khyå). Such an injunction has a positive form but contains a negative prescription; that is, the injunction is in reality a prohibition. A medieval exegetical text defines such an injunction thus: “When both alternatives are simultaneously established, an injunction that aims at excluding one is an injunction of exclusive specification.”14 The classical example of such an injunction is the following: “The five five-nailed animals are to be eaten.”15 Within the context of this injunction, there are two alternatives regarding the eating of these animals: one may eat the five mentioned animals and/or animals other than those five. Both 13 This principle is frequently formulated in the maxim “An exception has greater force than the rule” (utsargåpavådo balœyån). See Mœmå∫såko†a, 2:1110; Olivelle 1977, 1.14 n., 1.16 n. 14 ubhayasya yagupat pråptåv itaravyåv®ttiparo vidhiΔ parisa∫khåvidhiΔ. Mnp 244. See Also Kane 1962—75, II: 1229. 15 pa∞ca pa∞canakhå bhakßyåΔ. MBh 12.139.66; ÅpDh 1.5.17.37; VaDh 14.39; MDh 5.17— 18. The five are porcupine, hedgehog, hare, tortoise, and iguana. See also Jamison 1998.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

171

alternatives are established by the natural appetite and inclination of people, who tend to eat the flesh of all sorts of animals with five nails or toes. Now, the injunction in specifying the five five-nailed animals that are to be eaten excludes the eating of five-nailed animals other than these five. The injunction, therefore, actually amounts to a prohibition against eating the flesh of animals other than those specifically mentioned. The injunction, furthermore, does not enjoin people to eat the five types of animals; it only says that if people want to eat meat they may eat the meat of only these animals. Thus a person can decide not to eat meat at all, including the meat of these five animals, without violating this injunction. Interpreted as exclusive specifications, the rules regarding the behavior of renouncers do not require renouncers to perform any specific action. They simply specify a particular way of acting if a renouncer undertakes that type of activity. The rule on begging, for example, excludes all methods of obtaining food except begging; thus, if a renouncer wants to eat, this rule forces him to obtain his food only by begging. He may however, decide not to eat at all, in which case he is not required to beg. Such a decision will not violate the rule on begging. Insofar as they are exclusive specifications, therefore, the positive rules concerning renouncers and the positive actions that some renouncers perform on the basis of those rules do not constitute their renunciatory status. These actions are merely incidental. The essence of renunciation is constituted by the abandonment of ritual acts and not by the few ritual acts that renouncers may continue to perform. Within the context of the above discussion, the ideological distinction between renouncers and other groups within the Brahmanical world is striking. Brahmanical theology defines a group, whether it be based on caste, sex, or religious practice, as constituted by its own particular dharma (svadharma) that results in duties, rights, and practices particular to that group. It is the dharma that defines a group. The particular dharma of a group is embodied in specific and positive injunctions that people belonging to that group are expected to follow and that define their peculiar status. A householder — that is, a person belonging to the householder’s order of life (å†rama)— is defined, for example, by the performance of actions peculiar to that state, such as procreation and sacrifice. The exception is the renouncer, who is defined by what he has given up rather than by what he does. Technically, his dharma consists of prohibitions (niv®tti†åstra) rather than injunctions. There is, indeed, no practice that is obligatory on a renouncer, because all injunctions that apply to him are exclusive specifications. These scholastic explanations of activities that are distinctive to renouncers underscore the unique theological position of renunciation within the Brahmanical tradition. It is the only non-ritual state recognized within a fundamentally ritual ideology.

172

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

The householder and the renouncer represent the two major types of Brahmanical religiosity. Their distinction is based on the role of ritual in their lives: performance of rites and the absence of rites are their respective distinguishing characteristics, their peculiar dharma. The Nåradaparivråjaka (196) makes the same point negatively: These two shall not attain eminence because their actions are inconsistent with their states: a householder who abstains from rites and a mendicant who engages in them. dvåv imau na viråjete viparœtena karmañå Ù nirårambho g®hastha† ca kåryavå∫† caiva bhikßukaΔ ÙÙ

10.1.2 Renunciation as the Perfection of the Ritual The thoroughly ritual framework of the Brahmanical world and Brahmanical thought inevitably led to the employment of ritual categories in developing the theology of renunciation. In a negative way, that employment is evident in the very conception of renunciation as a non-ritual state. More positively, however, aspects of the renouncer’s life came to be viewed not merely as the abandonment of rites but as their perfection, and the very rite of renunciation was believed to produce powerful ritual results for the renouncer and for those related to him. The non-ritual state of renunciation, first of all, is often depicted as the ultimate perfection of the ritual. Within this context, the abandonment of rites and ritual accessories, as we shall see, is regarded as a process of internalization. The abandoned fires, for example, are carried internally in the form of the breaths or the internal fire responsible for digestion. Whatever a renouncer eats, therefore, becomes a sacrifice offered in the internal fires.16 The following passage of the Ka™ha†ruti illustrates the ritual perfection achieved by a person in the non-ritual state: What he eats in the evening becomes his evening sacrifice. What he eats in the morning becomes his morning sacrifice. What he eats on the new moon becomes his new moon sacrifice. What he eats on the full moon becomes his full moon sacrifice. When in the spring he shaves his head, his beard, and the hair of his body, and pares his nails, that constitutes his Agniß™oma sacrifice. sa yat såya∫ prå†nœyåt so ’sya såya∫homo yat pråtaΔ so ’ya∫ pråtaΔ, yad dar†e tad dar†a∫ yat paurñamåse tat paurñamåsya∫, yad vasante ke†a†ma†ruromanakhåni våpayet so ’syågniß™omaΔ Ù (K†rU 39)

The internalized ritual is more permanent and more sublime. The renouncer’s internal fires are permanently lit; he kindles them 16 On the Brahmanical ritual of Pråñågnihotra (“fire oblation in the breaths”) and its relationship to the renouncer’s offering in the breaths, see Bodewitz 1973.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

173

with every breath. His eating becomes a sacrificial offering. His body and bodily functions are transformed into a long sacrificial session. The renouncer’s body thus becomes a sacred object; it is equal to the fire altar where the Vedic rites are performed.17 A renouncer who abandons the external string and topknot but wears the internal string of knowledge is the perfect Brahmin. The perfection of the Brahmin state is achieved through the perfection of the ritual, and the perfection of the ritual requires that the external performance be replaced by internal detachment and knowledge. The very act of renunciation is a great act of sacrifice by which a man achieves greatness in both asceticism and ritual: Having deposited the sacred fires in himself, an ascetic who offers the entire phenomenal world in the fire of knowledge is a great ascetic and a true fire-sacrificer. prapa∞cam akhila∫ yas tu j∞ånågnau juhuyåd yatiΔ Ù åtmany agnœn samåropya so ’gnihotrœ mahåyatiΔ ÙÙ (BSaU 272)

Heesterman (1964) argues that the renouncer ideology that considers the renouncer’s non-ritual state as the perfection of the ritual is an orthogenetic and logical development of the ritual ideology that gave rise to the classical Vedic sacrificial system. According to Heesterman, the preclassical sacrifice of ancient India was based on an ideology of complementarity and mutual dependence between the sacrificial patron and the officiating priests. The priests, by accepting gifts and food, take upon themselves the death and impurity of the patron; and the patron is reborn ritually through the sacrifice. The classical sacrificial ideology eliminates this interdependence; the sacrificial patron becomes the sacrificer (yajamåna) whose rebirth is assured by the efficacy of the sacrificial act itself. The patron and the officiants are no longer rivals; they are fused into a single ritual unit. Heesterman sees this individualization of the ritual, where dependence on others is replaced by the independent efficacy of the ritual act, as the precursor of renunciation, in which the individualization is made so complete that the renouncer becomes totally independent, independent even of priests and the external act of sacrifice: The development of brahminical theory, set off by the individualization of the ritual, did not stop at the point where the host-guest, protagonistantagonist complementarity was fused into the single unit of the 17 This religious construction of the body contrasts sharply with another cultural construction of the human body in Indian asceticism, where the body is viewed as full of filth and equal to a corpse (see Olivelle 1995c included in this volume as chapter 7). The sacred nature of a renouncer’s body, however, is expressed in the believe that it is a visible image of god: “There are two forms of Våsudeva: the mobile and the immobile. The mobile form is the renouncer; the immobile consists of images” (YPra 3.15—16). Other texts also highlight the analogy between an idol and a renouncer: “A fast purifies a person who fails to pay homage when he sees an image of a god or a triple-staffed renouncer” (YPra 70.3—4). “In whosesoever house a renouncer eats, in his house eats Hari (Vißñu) himself” (YPra 70.8). See R. B. Williams, 1984.

174

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

yajamåna [sacrificer] and officiants. It has to advance to its logical conclusion, that is the interiorization of the ritual which makes the officiants’ services superfluous. . . . It would seem to me that here we touch the principle of world-renunciation, the emergence of which has been of crucial importance in the development of Indian religious thinking. (Heesterman 1964, 22—23) The point I want to stress is that the institution of renunciation is already implied in classical ritual thinking. The difference between classical ritualism and renunciation seems to be a matter rather of degree than of principle. The principle is the individualization of the ritual which could not but lead to its interiorization. (Heesterman 1964, 27)

As I have observed elsewhere (Olivelle 1992, 20-21), Heesterman’s theory depends too heavily on the development of ideas to be applicable without modifications to the history of the institution of renunciation, which transcends the boundaries of Brahmanism. In examining the origin and development of the institution (as opposed to the ideology) of renunciation, we need to take into account social, economic, and political factors, as well as the impact of rival ideologies and the growing ethnic diversity in ancient India. Heesterman’s theory, however, highlights significant aspects of the Brahmanical appropriation of renunciation and the ways in which Brahmanical theology understood and explained the status of a renouncer. It is in this appropriation that we notice strong continuities between the theologies of sacrifice and renunciation. All Indian renouncers, both within and outside the Brahmanical tradition, gave up ritual activities. They refused to use fire. It is only within the Brahmanical tradition, however, that the renouncer’s abandonment of fire and rites became the focal point for the theology of renunciation. This theology considers the abandonment as the internalization and, therefore, the perfection of ritual life. The renouncer is totally independent —independent of the officiants and of the external acts— because his very act of existence is transformed into a perfect and internal sacrifice. The Brahmanical theology of renunciation — and this is the significant point of Heesterman’s analysis— is a direct and logical development of the Brahmanical theology the sacrifice. 10.1.3 The Ritual Effects of Renunciation Not only was renunciation regarded as the perfection of the ritual, it also produced powerful ritual effects. Renunciation was thought to produce automatic effects, just like the ritual.18 Renunciation, for example, was believed to erase the renouncer’s sins, produce heavenly rewards for his relatives, and dissolve the bonds of marriage. The 18 For the legal effects of renunciation, including the dissolution of marriage and the abolition of all rights to ancestral property, see Olivelle 1984, 140—149 (see below, pp. 289— 90). Undoubtedly, many of these legal effects have a ritual basis.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

175

construction of many of these ritual effects of renunciation was clearly the result of the renouncers’ difficult and ambivalent relationships to their families. The ritual bond between parents and children, and more generally between preceding and succeeding generations of a family, was a key element of the Brahmanical world. We have already seen that the obligation to marry, to procreate children, and thus to continue the family line, is a central theme in Vedic theology. Celibacy, on the other hand, was a key element of renunciation. The tension between these two opposing values is reflected in most Brahmanical discussions of domesticity and renunciation. In spite of the doctrine of karma that established the moral autonomy of individuals and placed on their shoulders the sole responsibility for their condition after death, the necessity of male descendants to assure a person’s happiness after death through ritual offerings remained a significant element of the Brahmanical ideology of death. This belief finds expression in the funeral rites, at which doctrines of karma and rebirth are significantly absent, and in the offerings to deceased ancestors (†råddha). A son through his ritual offerings was believed to assure a happy existence for his deceased parents and ancestors. The celibate and non-ritual state of a renouncer consequently was perceived as a threat to the Brahmanical world. The classical formulation of the å†rama system (Olivelle 1993) mitigated this conflict by postponing renunciation until retirement from family responsibilities. Payment of the three debts was made a condition for renouncing. The Nåradaparivråjaka (NpvU 140), citing Manu (MDh 6.94), says: Having observed steadfastly the tenfold Law and having duly studied the Vedåntas, let a Brahmin renounce when he is freed from his debts. da†alakßañaka∫ dharmam anutiß™han samåhitaΔ Ù vedåntån vidhivac chrutvå sa∫nyased an®ño dvijaΔ ÙÙ

Brahmanical theology sought to lessen the conflict between familial duties and the celibate way of life also by developing theories regarding the ritual benefits that accrue to his relatives when a man takes to renunciation. One text declares: The wise man who says: “I have renounced,” rescues sixty generations of kin who have gone before him and sixty generations who will come after him. ßaß™i∫ kulåny atœtåni ßaß™im ågåmikåni ca Ù kulåny uddharate pråj∞aΔ sa∫nyastam iti yo vadet ÙÙ (BSaU 251)

Far from being a threat to the welfare of the family, renunciation, according o this theory, directly benefits the relatives of a renouncer. The ‡å™yåyanœya says that a renouncer “rescues from this existence his

176

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

forefathers, relatives by marriage, blood relations, companions, and friends” (‡å™U 331), and cites what it calls Vedic verses in support of this statement: One hundred prior generations as well as 300 subsequent generations attain the world of the virtuous when a wise man of their lineage takes to renunciation in this world. A virtuous renouncer rescues thirty (generations) immediately before him, thirty beyond those, and thirty after him: so, indeed, the Vedas declare. †ata∫ kulånå∫ prathama∫ babhüva tathå paråñå∫ tri†ata∫ kulånåm Ù ete bhavanti suk®tasya loke yeßå∫ kule sa∫nyasatœha vidvån ÙÙ tri∫ßat parå∫s tri∫†ad aparå∫s tri∫†ac ca parataΔ parån Ù uttårayati dharmiß™haΔ parivrå∂ iti vai †rutiΔ ÙÙ (‡å™U 331)

The theory of the ritual effects of renunciation facilitated the forging of bonds between renouncers and the world that they had renounced. These ritual effects gave renunciation a social significance. Scholars have become increasingly aware of the strong ties that continued to bind Indian renouncers of all sects to those who were closest to them in society, in particular to their parents and children.19 The image of a renouncer totally divorced from and unconcerned about ordinary people and about his relatives is purely a theological (and perhaps scholarly) figment. Renunciation was also believed to have ritual effects on the renouncer himself. His former sins, for example, are effaced, and he regains complete purity through the rite of renunciation. The fire of the Call20 will burn up all faults, both the congenital and the corporal, as chaff-fire gold. ye ca sa∫tånajå doßå ye doßå dehasa∫bhavåΔ Ù praißågnir nirdahet sarvå∫s tußågnir iva kå∞canam ÙÙ (BSaU 252)

The custom of renouncing when a person was at the point of death (åturasa∫nyåsa)21 also may have resulted from the belief in similar ritual effects of renunciation. Clearly the purpose of such renunciation was not the adoption of an ascetic life aimed at liberation. The ‡å™yåyanœya (331-332) gives one reason: A man who utters: “I have renounced,” even while breathing his last, rescues his forefathers: so the Vedas teach. 19 Schopen in his numerous writings has demonstrated how inscriptions on votive offerings made by Buddhist monks and nuns show their continued concern for the welfare of their parents: Schopen 1984, 1985, and in his collected volumes 1997 and 2005. 20 This is the formula of renunciation, “I have renounced,” given above and viewed as the essential element of the rite of renunciation. 21 See JåbU^ 68—69; NpvU 137—138, 162, 173, 177; ‡å™U 331—332.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

177

sa∫nyastam iti yo brüyåt kañ™hasthapråñavån api Ù tåritåΔ piratas tena iti vedånu†åsanam ÙÙ

To a person who renounces at the point of death, the Nåradaparivråjaka (177) assures a birth in a pleasant world. Other medieval texts mention a ritual effect not recorded in our Upanißads: renunciation eliminates the period of impurity that follows the death of an ordinary person. During this time the deceased exists in the condition of a ghost (preta). The right of renunciation, even the mere pronunciation of the Call: “I have renounced,” at the time of death, abolishes this state.22 The deceased renouncer becomes a forefather (pit®) immediately upon death. The normal funerary ritual (sapiñ∂œkaraña) aimed at leading the newly departed from the ghostly state to the world of the fathers is not performed for a dead renouncer.23 As renunciation has ritual effects, so does the fall from renunciation. Apostates and their children become outcastes, they are not allowed to become renouncers, and, according to many legal texts, they are reduced to slavery.24 The ¯å™yåyanœya (329-330) says that the sin of apostasy is as great as all the moral sins combined. It is even greater than them, because there is no expiation for it: A thief, one who drinks liquor, a violator of his teacher’s bed, and a treacherous friend —these become purified through expiations. But he who bears the manifest or the unmanifest emblem of Vißñu and then abandons it, is not purified by all the lustre of the self. stenaΔ suråpo gurutalpagåmœ mitradhrug ete nißk®ter yånti †uddhim Ù vyaktam avyakta∫ vå vidh®ta∫ vißñuliõga∫ tyajan na †udhyed akhilenåtmabhåså ÙÙ (‡å™U 330)

10.1.4 Renunciation and Detachment The reason for the abandonment of rites and the basis for many of the rules and customs of renunciation is the fundamental virtue that is expected to govern a renouncer’s life: detachment from and disgust toward (vairågya) all worldly things. This detachment is based on the conviction that nothing within the realm of sa∫såra —not even the pleasures of heaven— can truly satisfy the human longing for total and permanent happiness. Detachment is the one necessary condition for renunciation.25 Only when indifference toward all things has arisen in their minds, do they seek renunciation. Otherwise a man shall become an outcaste. See YPra 4.80, 93; 20.14. YPra 71.12—20, 52—53. 24 On the legal effects of apostasy, see Olivelle 1984, 149—151 (see below, pp. 283—90); Krishnan 1969. On apostasy, see BSaU 250—251; ‡å™U 329—330. 25 See JåbU 64; MaiU 116; NpvU 149; PhpU 278. 22 23

178

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Let a wise man renounce when he is detached, but live at home so long as he is attached. For the vile Brahmin who renounces while he is attached will go to hell. yadå manasi sa∫jåta∫ vait®ßñya∫ sarvavastußu Ù tadå sa∫nyåsam icchanti patitaΔ syåd viparyaye ÙÙ virktaΔ pravrajed dhœmån saraktas tu g®he vaset Ù sarågo naraka∫ yåti pravrajan hi dvijådhamaΔ ÙÙ (NpvU 138)

When detachment is present, a person does not have to await the appropriate time for renunciation (see below p. 186). The urgency of the call for personal liberation inherent in detachment forces a person to renounce immediately: “Let him even renounce on the very day that he becomes detached” —yad ahar eva virajet tad ahar eva pravrajet (JåbU 64). Rites, according to Brahmanical theology, are performed for specific ends either in this world or after death; they are especially aimed at attaining a heavenly world. This basic ritual principle is enunciated in the well-known injunction: “One desirous of heaven should perform a sacrifice.”26 Giving up ritual activity, therefore, is based on detachment from everything that one may desire in this life or the next. Abandoning the desire for “worlds,” that is, for the happiness of the various heavens of Hindu cosmology, is a point repeated in these documents. Betraying their male-oriented nature, our documents dwell especially on the need to be detached from the two most potent sources of attachment: one’s own body and women. The body is compared to a house filled with filth, disease, and misery. Let him abandon this impermanent dwelling place of the elements. It has beams of bones tied with tendons. It is plastered with flesh and blood and thatched with skin. It is foul-smelling, filled with feces and urine, and infested with old age and grief. Covered with dust and harassed by pain, it is the abode of disease. If a man finds joy in the body —a heap of flesh, blood, pus, feces, urine, tendons, marrow, and bones— that fool will find joy even in hell. asthisthüña∫ snåyubaddha∫ må∫sa†oñitalepitam Ù carmåvabaddha∫ durgandhi pürña∫ mütrapurœßayoΔ ÙÙ jarå†okasamåviß™a∫ rogåyatanam åturam Ù rajasvalam anitya∫ ca bhütåvåsam ima∫ tyajet ÙÙ må∫sås®kpüyaviñmütrasnåyumajjåsthisa∫hatau Ù dehe cet prœtimån mü∂ho bhavitå narake ’pi saΔ ÙÙ (NpvU 144; see also NpvU 160)

House is a common image in Indian ascetic literature to describe the human body.27 The image fits well with the homeless condition of 26

svargakåmo yajeta: ‡abara’s commentary on Pms 6.1.1—3.

27 For an excellent study of the “house image” in Buddhist ascetic ideology, see Collins

1982, 165—176. On the parallel between an embodied soul in bondage and the householder, see NpvU 189-190, and note 81 to my translation of it (Olivelle 1992).

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

179

the Indian ascetic. As a person becomes an ascetic by leaving home for the homeless state, so an ascetic must leave, that is become detached from, his body in order to attain the bodiless state of liberation. Both one’s home and one’s body contain numerous things that can become sources of attachment. Borrowing an analogy from Hindu purificatory rites, the Maitreya points out that the human body is the most impure of things. One who touches it —and we are in continuous contact with our body— should take a bath as surely as one who touches a corpse or an outcaste. Composed of its parents’ dirt, this body dies soon after it is born. It is a filthy house of joy and grief. When it is touched a bath is ordained. By its very nature, foul secretions continuously ooze out from its nine openings. It smells foul and contains awful filth. When it is touched a bath is ordained. jåta∫ m®tam ida∫ deha∫ måtåpit®malåtmakam Ù sukhaduΔkhålayåmedhya∫ sp®ß™vå snåna∫ vidhœyate ÙÙ navadvåramalasråva∫ sadåkåle svabhåvajam Ù durgandha∫ durmalopeta∫ sp®ß™vå snåna∫ vidhœyate ÙÙ (MaiU 113—114)

If the body itself is the main source of pollution, the rites people use to purify the body are utterly useless. Rites cannot purify the very source of pollution. The only thought of one living in such a filthy abode should be how best and how soon to leave it, as exemplified in the lamentable plea of King B®hadratha (MaiU 108). The best way to reflect on one’s body is to consider it as a corpse (PhU 48; NpvU 153, 175, 201). The body that we nourish, wash, decorate, clothe, and love is left at the end in a cemetery to rot, food for worms and vultures. Even more deadly than the love of one’s own body is the lust that women, more specifically the bodies of women, arouse in men. Ascetics are constantly admonished to stay away from them. A man becomes intoxicated by seeing a young woman just as much as by drinking liquor. Therefore, a man should avoid from afar a woman, the mere sight of whom is poison. He shall avoid speaking or chatting with women, looking at them, dancing, singing, or laughing with them, and reproaching them. mådyati pramadå∫ d®ß™vå surå∫ pœtvå ca mådyati Ù tasmåd d®ß™ivißå∫ nårœ∫ dürataΔ parivarjayet ÙÙ sa∫bhåßaña∫ saha strœbhir ålåpa∫ prekßaña∫ tathå Ù n®tta∫ gåna∫ sahåsa∫ ca parivådå∫† ca varjayet ÙÙ (NpvU 196—197; see also NpvU 136) With stylish hair and painted eyes, hard to touch but pleasing to the eye, women are like the flame of sin and burn a man like straw.

180

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Burning even from afar, sweet and yet bitter, women indeed are the fuel of hellfire, both lovely and cruel. ke†akajjaladhåriñyo duΔspar†å locanapriyåΔ Ù dußk®tågni†ikhå nåryo dahanti t®ñavan naram ÙÙ jvalitå atidüre ’pi saraså api nœrasåΔ Ù striyo hi narakågnœnåm indhana∫ cårudåruñam ÙÙ (YU 315—316)

Passion does not die with age. Old men continue to lust, and old women continue to arouse lust. A wise man, though he may be very old, should not place his confidence even in very old women: an old piece of cloth sticks to even very old patched garments. sujœrño ’pi sujœrñåsu vidvån strœßu na vi†vaset Ù sujœrñåsv api kanthåsu sajjate jœrñam ambaram ÙÙ (BSaU 270)

Women are depicted not only as exciting lust in men but also as active temptresses who demoniacally pull men away from the path of virtue. A deep-seated fear and hatred of women, a veritable gynephobia, appears to have been present in may of the authors of these documents. The Yåj∞avalkya Upanißad, in a passage borrowed from the Yogavåsiß™ha (1.21.1—6), attempts to create revulsion toward a woman’s body: What, pray, is the beauty of a woman, who is a puppet of flesh furnished with tendons, bones, and joints, within a cage of limbs moved by a machine? Examine her eyes after separating the skin, the flesh, the blood, the tears, and the fluid, and see if there is any charm. Why are you bewitched in vain? The same breast of a girl, on which we see the brilliant splendour of a pearl necklace comparable to swift waters of the Ganges rippling down the slopes of mount Meru, is in time eaten with relish by dogs in remote cemeteries as if it were a little morsel of food. må∫sapå∞cålikåyås tu yantralole ’õgapa∞jare Ù snåvyasthi†ålinyåΔ striyåΔ kim iva †obhanam ÙÙ tvaõmå∫saraktabåßpåmbu p®thakk®två vilocane Ù samålokaya ramya∫ cet ki∫ mudhå parimuhyasi ÙÙ meru†®õgata™ollåsigaõgåjalarayopamå Ù d®ß™vå yasmin stane muktåhårasyollåsa†ålitå ÙÙ †ma†åneßu diganteßu sa eva lalanåstanaΔ Ù †vabhir åsvådyate kåle laghupiñ∂a ivåndhasaΔ ÙÙ (YU 314—315)

The Nåradaparivråjaka makes similar remarks regarding the female sexual organs that excite the passions of men: Even though a woman’s private parts are not different from a deep and festering ulcer, men generally deceive themselves by imagining them to be different.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

181

I salute those who take delight in a piece of skin split in two scented by the breaking of wind! What could be more rash. strœñåm avåcyade†asya klinnanå∂œvrañasya ca Ù abhede ’pi manobhedåj janaΔ pråyeña va∞cyate ÙÙ carmakhañ∂a∫ dvidhåbhinnam apånodgåradhüpitam Ù ye ramanti namas tebhyaΔ såhasa∫ kim ataΔ param ÙÙ (NpvU 160—161)

10.1.5 Renunciation and Liberation Renunciation is presented in our Upanißads not as an end in itself but as the path leading to the final goal of human existence, namely liberation (NpvU 130; BSaU 251). Detachment from worldly things and the abandonment of rites are the necessary conditions for achieving this final goal. The B®hat-Sa∫nyåsa (272) puts this clearly: People are bound by rites and liberated by knowledge. Wise ascetics, therefore, do not perform rites. karmañå badhyate jantur vidyayå ca vimucyate Ù tasmåt karma na kurvanti yatayaΔ påradar†inaΔ ÙÙ

Most of our Upanißads subscribe to the Advaita Vedånta doctrine that the world of multiplicity and our own consciousness as separate individuals are ultimately illusory, and that the knowledge of Brahman as the sole reality and of our own ultimate identity with that reality is the cause of liberation. Renunciation, therefore, amounts to achieving freedom from attachment to worldly things and from the pursuit of all other goals in order to focus all one’s energies on achieving the knowledge that grants absolute freedom. A renouncer who does not pursue knowledge is a false renouncer. Dire consequences await him, for he has abandoned his normal duties without undertaking the corresponding obligation to pursue knowledge. A man who, giving up all desires and abiding steadfastly in the Absolute, bears the staff of wisdom, is called a single-staffed ascetic. A man who merely carries a wooden staff and, although he lacks wisdom, eats from all goes to Mahåraurava and other such terrible hells. sarvån kåmån parityajya advaite paramasthitiΔ Ù j∞ånadañ∂o dh®to yena ekadañ∂œ sa ucyate ÙÙ kåß™adañ∂o dh®to yena sarv农 j∞ånavarjitaΔ Ù sa yåti narakån ghorån mahårauravam eva ca ÙÙ (PhU 50) He who renounces for the sake of wealth, food, clothes, or celebrity, falls from both paths and is unable to attain release. dravyårtham annavastrårtha∫ yaΔ pratiß™hårtham eva vå Ù sa∫nyased ubhayabhraß™aΔ sa mukti∫ nåptum arhati ÙÙ (MaiU 117)

182

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Such a renouncer falls from both paths, that is from the path to heaven that requires the performance of rites and from the path to liberation that requires knowledge. A text cited in many medieval sources acknowledges that base motives prompt many people to become renouncers: There are many Brahmins who make a living by carrying the emblem of the triple-staff. He who knows not Brahman, the scriptures say, is not worthy of the triple staff. tridañ∂a∫ liõgam å†ritya jœvanti bahavo dvijåΔ Ù yo hi brahma na jånåti tridañ∂årho na sa sm®taΔ ÙÙ (YDhS 2.32)

Even our documents acknowledge, nevertheless, that the goal of the lower types of renunciation is not directly liberation but the attainment of a heavenly world (NpvU 177). Yet they posit liberation as the final goal toward which all renouncers should work. The revulsion toward the world, the torment of living continuously in this miserable life, and the yearning to acquire the liberating knowledge, then, should be the motives for renunciation. King B®hadratha’s lament as he pleads with the sage ‡åkåyanya to instruct him in the liberating knowledge illustrates this point: Lord, this body is produced just by sexual intercourse and is devoid of consciousness; it is a veritable hell. Born through the urinary canal, it is built with bones, plastered with flesh, and covered with skin. It is filled with feces, urine, wind, bile, phlegm, marrow, fat, serum, and many other kinds of filth. In such a body do I live; you are my refuge. But why speak of these when, among other things, mighty oceans dry up, lofty peaks crumble down, the pole star swerves, the wind-ropes are cut down, the earth is submerged, and gods fall from their station? I am also like that. So what purpose is there in enjoying desires within a sa∫såric existence such as this when we see that people attached to them are reborn repeatedly? So, please deliver me. In this sa∫såric existence, I am like a frog in a dark well. You, O Lord, are my only refuge. bhagava∞ charœram ida∫ maithunåd evodbhüta∫ sa∫vidapeta∫ niraya eva mütradvåreña nißkråntam asthibhi† cita∫ må∫senånulipta∫ carmañåvabaddha∫ viñmütravåtapittakaphamajjåmedovasåbhir anyai† ca malair bahubhiΔ paripürñam Ù etåd®†e †arœre vartamånasya bhagava∫s tva∫ no gatir iti ÙÙ atha kim etair vånyånå∫ †oßaña∫ mahårñavånå∫ †ikhariñå∫ prapatana∫ dhruvasya pracalana∫ vra†cana∫ våtarajjünå∫ nimajjana∫ p®thivyåΔ sthånåd apasaraña∫ suråñåm Ù so ’ham ity etadvidhe ’smin sa∫såre ki∫ kåmopabhogair yair evå†ritasyåsak®d upåvartana∫ d®†yata ity uddhartum arhasœti Ù andhodapånastho bheka ivåham asmin sa∫såre bhagava∫s tva∫ no gatir iti ÙÙ (MaiU 108—109)

A man who has eradicated all attachments and acquired the liberating knowledge is the highest type of renouncer. Throughout these documents there are eulogies of the renouncer who has thus

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

183

liberated himself in this very life.28 The liberated renouncer, who has experienced his identity with Brahman, exclaims in joyful ecstasy: I am I, but also the other. I am Brahman, I am the source. I am the teacher of the whole world. I am the whole world. I am he! I am only I, I am perfect. I am pure, I am supreme. I am spotless and eternal. I am I. I am always he! I am wisdom, I am special. I am the moon, I am complete. I am splendid, I am without grief. I am spirit. I am the same! From honor and dishonor, and from qualities I am free. I am ‡iva! From oneness and duality and from opposites I am free. I am he! 29

The very definition of renunciation as freedom from rites implies, as we have seen, also the freedom from Vedic injunctions, because rites are the subject of such injunctions. That freedom, however, is achieved gradually. There are several types of renouncers (Olivelle 1992, 98—100), and their hierarchy is determined precisely by their degree of freedom from such injunctions. At the highest level, however, stands the liberated renouncer; his freedom is total and unconditioned. He is subject to no injunction or prohibition; he transcends both the ritual sphere and the realm of morality. Liberation while still alive is thus an antinomian state. Translated into the Brahmanical vocabulary, it means that the liberated renouncer is beyond dharma, the totality of which is subsumed in the code “dharma of classes and orders” (varñå†ramadharma). When a man attains the vision of his self and the rules of class and order consequently melt away, he transcends all classes and orders and abides in his own self. 28 LSaU 25—27; PhpU 47—50; JåbU 69—71; MaiU 118—126; BSaU 225—262; B®AU 305—310. 29 aham asmi para† cåsmi brahmåsmi prabhavo ’smy aham Ù sarvalokaguru† cåsmi sarvaloko ’smi so ’smy aham ÙÙ aham evåsmi siddho ’smi †uddho ’smi paramo ’smy aham Ù aham asmi sadå so ’smi nityo ’smi vimalo ’smy aham ÙÙ vij∞åno ’smi vi†eßo ’smi somo ’smi sakalo ’smy aham Ù †uddho ’smi †okahœno ’smi caitanyo ’smi samo ’smy aham ÙÙ månåvamånahœno ’smi nirguño ’smi †ivo ’smy aham Ù dvaitådvaitavihœno ’smi nirguño ’smi †ivo ’smy aham ÙÙ (MaiU 119—120)

184

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

There are no rules or prohibitions, no laws on what is allowed and what is forbidden, nor any other restrictions, O Nårada, for those who know Brahman. yasya varñå†ramåcåro galitaΔ svåtmadar†anåt Ù sa varñå†ramån sarvån atœtya svåtmani sthitaΔ ÙÙ na vidhir na nißedha† ca na varjyåvarjyakalpanå Ù brahmavij∞åninåm asti tathå nånyac ca nårada ÙÙ (NpvU 193—194)

To such an ascetic applies the phrase that recurs frequently in these Upanißads: he has done all there is to do, and so he has nothing that he needs to do.30 10.2. The Rite of Renunciation The proper ritual for becoming a renouncer is a major concern of our Upanißads. Several of them open with that question. Åruñi, for example, asks Prajåpati: “By what means, O Lord, can I give up rites completely?” (ÅrU 3). When ‡aunaka and the other seers ask Nårada: “Lord, tell us the procedure of renunciation,” Nårada replies: “It is only proper that we learn all its features from the mouth of the Grandfather himself” (NpvU 132). The procedure is presented as a deep secret —an upanißad— that can be learned only from the creator god himself. The abandonment of rites, paradoxically, can be accomplished only through the appropriate rite. Renunciation is not a mere refusal to perform rites, for that would constitute an offense against one’s dharma. It is a state in which rites are absent, and that state can be attained only through the proper ritual process. As one source puts it, renunciation is not like throwing away old clothes; even an enlightened person has to renounce following the proper rules of procedure (vidhinå).31 The more ancient Upanißads of our collection do not attempt to describe the rite of renunciation in detail; they only present some of its key elements directly related to the abandonment of rites. The only Upanißad to present the rite in its entirety, as it is found in the medieval handbooks (paddhati), is the Nåradaparivråjaka. My aim here is not to describe the rite in detail,32 but to highlight certain elements of it that would help us comprehend the Brahmanical understanding of renunciation. 10.2.1 Qualification for Renunciation The first question that Brahmanical theology addresses when it discusses any rite concerns the person who is qualified or entitled to 30 PhpU 55; NpvU 155—156; PhpU 289; TurU 245. On the medieval controversies regarding the antinomian state of a liberated individual, see Olivelle 1986—87. 31 JMV 153, 401—402; YPra 5.97. 32 For an accessible description of the rite, see Olivelle 1977, 37—45, and the YPra 5— 21 translated there.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

185

perform it (adhikårin). It is not surprising, therefore, that our Upanißads devote a considerable amount of space to the discussion of the qualifications for renunciation and the related question of the proper time for renunciation. With regard to caste, it is obvious that people not belonging to the three upper classes (varña) are not permitted to perform the rite of renunciation. Many elements of the rite, such as the abandonment of the sacred fire and the ritual implements, presuppose that the person undergoing renunciation is qualified to perform Vedic rites. Even though ‡üdras and other low-caste persons are clearly excluded, there is some uncertainty as to whether persons from all three upper classes or only Brahmins could perform this rite. Our documents do not engage this question, which looms large in medieval discussion on renunciation.33 It is nevertheless evident that even though these Upanißads do not explicitly exclude others, they address themselves principally to Brahmins. This attitude is revealed when the texts refer to a renouncer by the many Sanskrit terms for Brahmin: bråhmaña, vipra, dvijottama. A good example is found in the question that we have already examined regarding the abandonment of the sacrificial string: “How can a man be a Brahmin when he has no sacrificial string?” — ayaj∞opavœtœ katha∫ bråhmañaΔ (JåbU 67). The implicit assumption in the entire discussion on the abandonment of the sacrificial string is that the renouncer who abandons it is a Brahmin. Thus the Brahma Upanißad (87) says that “He possesses the complete Brahmin state whose topknot and whose sacrificial string consist of knowledge” —†ikhå j∞ånamayœ yasya upavœta∫ ca tanmayam bråhmañya∫ sakala∫ tasya. The question of the renunciation of women is also not addressed in our documents. It is abundantly clear, however, that these texts were written by and for men and assume that renouncers are men.34 Women in Brahmanical theology are not independent ritual actors. They enter the ritual only as wives of their husbands; women are incompetent to perform independently the ritual actions called for in the rite of renunciation. I have, moreover, already cited several passages that warn renouncers about the danger posed by women and that reveal an attitude of gynephobia. Women enter the picture only as objects of passion and temptresses eager to entrap men. In Brahmanical discussions, questions regarding the qualifications and the proper time for renunciation are generally associated with the å†rama system, that is, the orders or stages of life through which, according to the classical formulation of the system, a Brahmin was expected to pass during his lifetime. The early Upanißads in our collection do not mention the å†rama system by name, yet they refer to See Olivelle 1977, 32-33, and YPra 3.1—50 translated there. There is ample historical evidence for the existence of female renouncers both within and outside the Brahmanical tradition (Olivelle 1984, 114—115). The question here is not about their existence but about their theological legitimacy. 33

34

186

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

the institutions of student, householder, and hermit that precede renunciation in the classical system. The Katha†ruti (K†rU 37—38), for example, says: After a Vedic student has studied one, two, or all the Vedas and completed his studentship, he should marry a wife, beget sons, place them in suitable occupations, and offer sacrifices according to his ability. Renunciation is meant for such a man with the approval of his elders and relatives. brahmacarœ vedam adhœtya vedau vedån vå caritabrahmacaryo dårån åh®tya putrån utpådya tån anurüpåbhir v®ttibur vitatyeß™vå ca †aktito yaj∞ais tasya sa∫nyåso gurubhir anuj∞åtasya båndhavai† ca.

The Jåbåla (JåbU 64) gives the classical å†rama theory without, however, using the term å†rama: After he has completed his Vedic studentship, a man should become a householder. After he has been a householder, he should become a forest hermit. After he has been a forest hermit, he should renounce.35 brahmacarya∫ samåpya g®hœ bhavet Ù g®hœ bhütvå vanœ bhavet Ù vanœ bhütvå pravrajet Ù

For those who have detachment, however, the obligation to pass through these stages does not apply. They may renounce at any time. Or rather, he may renounce directly from Vedic studentship, or from home, or from the forest. Let him even renounce on the very day that he becomes detached, regardless of whether he has taken the vow or not, whether he has graduated or not, and whether he has kindled the sacred fire or is without a fire.36 yadi vetarathå brahmacaryåd eva pravrajed g®håd vå vanåd vå Ù atha punar avratœ vå vratœ vå snåtako våsnåtako vå utpannågnir anagniko vå yad ahar eve virajet tad ahar eva pravrajet ÙÙ

Thus a person who possesses detachment may renounce as a young man before he has married or even as a boy before he has undergone Vedic initiation. A few sources37 require a person who intends to renounce to obtain the consent of his relatives. The Katha†ruti requires him to obtain the consent of his mother, father, wife, sons, friends, and relatives at one place (K†rU 31) and of his elders and relatives at another (K†rU 38). The Upanißads composed during the medieval period, such as the Nåradaparivråjaka and the B®hat-Sa∫nyåsa, provide a mélange of physical, social, and moral disabilities that would disqualify a person from See also LSaU 17—18; K†rU 31; NpvU 131, 134, 149; BSaU 254; PhpU 278. JåbU 64. See also ÅrU 5—6, 9. 37 See PhpU 278; ‡å™U 327. 35

36

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

187

renunciation. Persons thus disqualified include the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the bald, cripples, eunuchs, outcastes, heretics, sinners, and people belonging to some sects (NpvU 136—137; BSaU 250—251). 10.2.2 Renunciation of Fire Fire occupied the central place within the ritual religion of Bråmañism. All the Vedic sacrifices were offered in the sacred fire. Tending the fire of his teacher was a major occupation of a student. When a student completed his studies and got married, he was expected to establish the domestic fire. It was the focal point of domestic religiosity. In addition, some Brahmin householders maintained the three sacred fires employed in Vedic sacrifices. The abandonment of that ritual religion by the renouncer is symbolized by his renunciation, or more exactly the “depositing within himself,” of the sacred fires, which is clearly the central and the most important element of the renunciatory rite. The theology of renunciation that underlies this rite, however, considers the abandonment of fire not as a rejection but as an internalization. The external fires are deposited within the renouncer, who continues to carry them internally and, therefore, in a more perfect and permanent manner. There appears to have been no uniform rite for abandoning fire. Sources give several versions of the rite, all of which, however, present the abandonment of fire as its internalization. The Åruñi (6), for example, says that a man “should deposit his external fires in the fire of his stomach.” The plural “fires” indicates that the man was assumed to have maintained the three Vedic fires. The human body was thought to possess a fire responsible for bodily warmth and digestion. The external fires are merged by this rite into the internal stomach fire. Other sources state that the fires are to be deposited in one’s self or in one’s breaths. According to some sources, during the rite of abandonment, the renouncer inhales the warmth of the fires, while he recites the verse: This is your due place of birth whence born you did shine. Knowing this, O Fire, mount it, and make our wealth increase. (JåbU 65—66)

The place of birth, or the womb (yoni), of fire is here identified with human breath. The fire is not extinguished but reduced to its latent state within its source. The renouncer thus continues to possess the abandoned fires in a more complete manner. Carrying them internally, he is never separated from them. The Katha†ruti (38)

188

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

records the words the renouncer addresses to the fires immediately after abandoning them: “Do not leave me and go away; I shall not leave you and go away.” The ritual depositing of the fires in oneself is not unique to the rite of renunciation. It is recorded in the Vedic literature and was a somewhat common rite associated with travel. When a Brahmin who maintained the sacred fires went on a long journey, it was impractical to take with him his fires physically. If he did not take them along, however, he was not able to perform the daily fire sacrifice or to fulfill other ritual obligations. The ritual experts, therefore, designed three non-physical ways in which a traveling Brahmin could take his fires along with him. The first, and perhaps most ancient, was the depositing of the fires in the two fire drills (arañi) that were used to produce the ritual fire. This method is mentioned in the rather early Taittirœya Sa∫hitå (3.4.10.4—5). In all likelihood, it was considered the standard procedure, while the other two were viewed as acceptable alternatives.38 The Åpastamba ‡rautasütra (6.28.8—9) gives the following procedure for depositing the sacred fires in the fire drills. After offering a sacrifice called Våstoßpatya,39 the performer holds the two fire drills separately over each fire, reciting the formula: “This is your due place of birth…” (see JåbU 65—66). In this context the fire drills are appropriately considered as the womb of the fire. Thereafter, the fires are ritually contained within the fire drills. During the journey the Brahmin takes the fire-drills with him. Whenever he wishes to perform a sacrifice, he uses the drills to produce a fire while reciting a special ritual formula.40 Ritually this new fire is identical to the sacred fire that he had earlier deposited in the fire drills. A second method is to deposit the sacred fires in a piece of firewood. The piece of wood is held over the sacred fire until it turns black. It is carried by the Brahmin during the journey and is used to kindle a fire whenever he needs his sacred fires.41 The third, and from the point of view of the renunciatory ritual the most significant, is the depositing of the fires in one’s self or body.42 The Taittirœya Sa∫hitå (3.4.10.5) observes that the fire drills may be lost during a journey after the fires have been deposited in them. In that event the Brahmin would have to perform the entire elaborate ritual for establishing his sacred fires over again. It prescribes, therefore, an alternative and safer method of carrying one’s 38 The Bhåradvåja ‡rautasütra (6.6.12), for example, calls the depositing of the fires in the self “the next best alternative.” See also TS 3.4.10.5. 39 See TS 3.4.10.1—4; Åpastamba ‡rautasütra, 6.28.1—8; Bhåradvåja ‡rautasütra 6.6.8—10. 40 The formula upåvaroha jåtavedaΔ punas tvam (“Descend again, O Fire”)is given in the TB 2.5.8.8 and the Åpastamba ‡rautasütra, 6.28.12. 41 See the Vaikhånasa G®hyasütra, 3.6. 42 The technical term is åtmasamåropa. The term åtman in this context may mean the self or, what is more likely, the body.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

189

sacred fires: the fires may be deposited in the traveler’s own body or self (åtmasamåropa). There are diverse opinions regarding the actual procedure for depositing the fires in one’s body. According to the Åpastamba ‡rautasütra (6.28.11), one warms the hands over the fires and then places the hands over one’s mouth.43 The ritual formula used during this rite is the following: With your body worthy of sacrifice, O Fire, come here and mount my body, procuring many riches, splendid and manly. Becoming the sacrifice, sit down at the sacrifice, your own abode. Born from the earth, O Jåtadeva, come with your abode. yå te agne yaj∞iyå tanüs tayehy årohåtmånam Ù acchå vasüni k®ñvann asme naryå purüñi Ù yaj∞o bhütvå yaj∞am åsœda svå∫ yonim Ù jåtavedo bhuva åjåyamånaΔ sakßaya ehi ÙÙ (TB 2.5.8.8)

When the sacred fire is needed, the traveling Brahmin blows on an ordinary fire, reciting the same formula as when the fire is kindled after it had been deposited in the fire-drills (see above note 40). The rite of renunciation has undoubtedly borrowed the ceremony of depositing the fires in the body or self from the Vedic ritual practice. The influence of Vedic practices relating to travel is noticeable in the rite of depositing the fires in the body at renunciation. Thus, for example, sources prescribe “This is your due place of birth… ,” as well as “With your body worthy of sacrifice…” as the mantra that is recited when a renouncer deposits the fires in himself. Within the Vedic ritual the former is used when the fires are deposited in the fire drills, whereas the latter is used for depositing them in one’s self.44 Vedic ceremonies associated with travel provided a ritual parallel to the wandering life of a renouncer. There are, however, two significant differences. The traveling Brahmin periodically rekindles his sacred fires and finally returns home. The wandering renouncer has permanently internalized his fires and will never return home. His internalization of fire amounts to its abandonment, for he will no longer perform any rites. The renouncer is instructed: “Having renounced the fires, let him not bring them back” —sa∫nyasyågnœn na punar åvartayet (K†rU 40; LSaU 20). Ritual Death and the Abandonment of Ritual Implements Renunciation was considered the ritual death of the renouncer; that the renouncer is a ritually dead person, even though he is physi43 The ņvalåyana ‡rautasütra (3.10.6), without mentioning the åtmasamåropa, only states that the hands should be warmed over the householder’s, i.e., the western, fire (gårhapatya). 44 The depositing in the fire drills is used in the rite for becoming a forest hermit (vånaprastha), which also involves the departure from home to the forest. The hermit rekindles his fires after he has established himself in a hut within the forest. See VkhDh 2.4—5.

190

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

cally alive, is a significant aspect of the Brahmanical theology of renunciation. The fact that renunciation is a non-ritual state, for example, can be explained theologically on the basis of the ritually dead status of a renouncer. People are obliged to perform rites only until death. As one Vedic text puts it: It is assuredly a long sacrificial session upon which they enter who offer the daily fire sacrifice (agnihotra). This is indeed a session to be broken off only through old age. For one is absolved from it either by old age or by death.45 (JB 1.51)

If renunciation is death, then renouncers may legitimately cease to perform sacrifices. Some of the legal effects of renunciation also result from this understanding.46 As at a man’s death, so at his renunciation his marriage is dissolved and, according to some sources, his wife is permitted to remarry; he is freed from contractual debts; and his property is partitioned among his heirs. Several elements of the rite of renunciation bear striking resemblance to Brahmanical rites associated with the dying and the dead. Many medieval sources, including the Nåradaparivråjaka Upanißad (162—163), for example, prescribe the offering of eight oblations (†råddha) prior to the rite of renunciation. The last of these is offered to the renouncer’s grandfather and father, and to himself. The inclusion of the renouncer in this ritual triad is significant. The typical monthly oblation to one’s deceased relatives (pårvaña†raddha) includes the father and the paternal grandfather and great-grandfather. When a person dies, his great-grandfather is dropped from the triad and his son offers the oblation to his newly deceased father and to his father’s father and grandfather. At the rite of renunciation, likewise, the great-grandfather is dropped from the triad and his place is taken by the renouncer himself. He is now counted among the deceased relatives. A ceremony in the rite of renunciation that signals the imminent death of the renouncer is taken from the ancient ceremony (sa∫pratti or sa∫pradåna) that was to be performed by a man who was about to die. The renouncer addresses his son, saying: “You are Brahman! You are the sacrifice!…” The son replies: “I am Brahman! I am the sacrifice!…” (see K†rU 36). After this ceremony, just as after the death of the father, the son assumes his father’s position as the ritual head of the household. One ceremony above all, however, clearly demonstrates that renunciation constitutes the ritual death of a renouncer. It relates to the disposal of ritual implements and is taken from the Brahmanical 45 46

On the interpretation of this text, see Olivelle 1993, 40. See Olivelle 1984 included in this volume as chapter 16.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

191

rite of cremation. When a sacrificer dies, his wooden sacrificial implements are placed on designated parts of his body and are cremated along with him, using his sacred fires. The Katha†ruti (31) describes a procedure according to which the renouncer’s sacrificial implements are disposed of in a similar manner. They are placed on various parts of the renouncer’s body prior to depositing the sacred fires in his body, which, in all likelihood, parallels cremation, at which his sacrificial fires also enter his body. Two significant articles connected with the sacrifice and with ritual life in general are the sacrificial string and the topknot. By the beginning of the common era these had become symbols of the twiceborn status of the three upper classes in general and of the Brahmin priests in particular. Not all Brahmins maintained in their homes the sacred fires, but all Brahmins wore a sacrificial string as the primary symbol of their state and status. Its abandonment at renunciation had a special significance in Bråhmañism. It is also one element of the rite of renunciation mentioned in almost every discussion of the rite. Discarding the sacrificial string and getting rid of the topknot appear to have caused some controversy in Brahmanical circles.47 Most of our documents deal with this question. The Jåbåla (67 = NpvU 151) puts it bluntly: “I ask you, Yåj∞avalkya, how can a man be a Brahmin when he has no sacrificial string?” —p®cchåmi två yåj∞avalkya, ayaj∞opavœtœ katha∫ bråhmaña iti. The answer is that for a renouncer the knowledge of one’s self constitutes the sacrificial string. The greater portion of the Brahma (85—91) and the Parabrahma (293—299) are devoted to the allegorical understanding of the sacrificial string. Knowledge is the sacrificial string of renouncers; knowledge, not long hair, constitutes the true topknot (BraU 86—87). Brahman, indeed, is the supreme string on which the entire universe is strung like pearls on a string; those who know Brahman possess the true string (BraU 86—87). The Brahma Upanißad (87) is thus able to conclude: He possesses the complete Brahmin state, the knowers of Brahman say, whose topknot and whose sacrificial string consist of knowledge. †ikhå j∞ånamayœ yasya upavœta∫ ca tanmayam Ù bråhmañya∫ sakala∫ tasya iti brahmavido viduΔ ÙÙ

The answer then to the question we started with is that the renouncer is the true Brahmin, not those who wear outward signs and perform rites. The reason, however, for the abandonment of the external string is the non-ritual state of a renouncer. The Brahma (87) states that the external string should be worn only by those who are qualified to perform rites, because the string is a subsidiary ele47 For a detailed examination of a medieval debate on this issue between the Advaita and the Vi†iß™ådvaita (‡rœ-Vaißñava) traditions, see Olivelle 1986, 1987.

192

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

ment of ritual acts. When rites are abandoned, the qualification to perform rites ceases, and with it the requirement to wear an external string and topknot. The abandonment of the sacred fire as well as the sacrificial accessories during the rite of renunciation underscores the Brahmanical doctrine that renunciation is a non-ritual state that resembles death. Although ritually dead, the renouncer yet continues to live physically in the world, thereby putting himself in an ambivalent and liminal position within Bråhamañism. Both his condition of ritual death and the fact that, having deposited the sacred fires in himself, he is engaged in a continuous sacrifice, conspire to make the renouncer ritually impure, in spite of the claim that he is beyond such categories.48 In India, as we have seen, people who have died recently are believed to exist in a liminal state; such people are called preta (ghost). They are neither in this world nor in the next. In that state they are impure and dangerous. Although the textual evidence is not altogether clear, I believe that the liminal condition of a renouncer resembles that of a newly dead person (preta). Both are impure and dangerous. Pretas are released from that state through a rite called sapiñ∂œkaraña that ritually incorporates them into the community of deceased ancestors. For a deceased renouncer this ceremony is not performed. His very physical death, it appears, eliminates the preta-like condition he had voluntarily assumed while he lived as a renouncer. The continuous state of a renouncer’s internal sacrifice, likewise, assimilates him to a person who is initiated for a sacrifice (dœkßita). Heesterman has clearly demonstrated that a man so initiated is ritually impure, even though in the classical Vedic ritual his initiation (dœkßå) is regarded as a purificatory rite.49 He is ritually taboo; people are not allowed to eat his food, to wear his clothes, to touch him, or even to pronounce his name. The impurity of the renouncer, whether it is related to his death or to his sacrificial status, is also marked by various restrictions that affect his relationship to people in the world. One should not eat the food of a renouncer even though one is breathing one’s last; a renouncer’s food is equal to cow’s meat and his water equals drops of liquor. One should not eat three kinds of food: the food of a renouncer, the food in the begging bowl of a renouncer, and that which is given to a renouncer. After eating such food one should observe the lunar fast. 48 Many sources assert that a renouncer is beyond dualistic categories, such as right and wrong, true and false, and pure and impure: see VkhDh 1.9. 49 “The Yajamåna [sacrificer], who has undergone dœkßå, is not pure, but on the contrary is charged with the evil of death to which he has to submit in order to be reborn.” Heesterman 1964, 2. See also Heesterman 1962.

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

193

yatyanna∫ ca na bhoktavya∫ pråñaiΔ kañ™hagatair api Ù gomå∫sena sama∫ cånna∫ suråbindusama∫ jalam ÙÙ yatyanna∫ yatipåtrastha∫ yatinå prerita∫ ca yat Ù annatraya∫ na bhoktavya∫ bhuktvå cåndråyaña∫ caret ÙÙ50

The liminal and ambivalent status of a renouncer is nicely illustrated in an episode related by Agehananda Bharati, the Viennese gentleman turned Hindu ascetic, during a visit to a Hindu temple in Benares: I took a last bath at the Ghat of Ten Horse Sacrifices, offered tarpanam [“water offering”] to Mother Gaõgå, worshipped Lord Vi†vånåth [sic] at his Golden temple, partook of the prasåd [food offered to a deity and then distributed to devotees] which the priest gave to me with his left hand: for this is the way the food oblations are given to the sannyåsœ [“renouncer”], in the same manner as to the manes. For ritualistic purposes the sannyåsœ is dead and his participation in any ritual can be only that of a witness or else in the same hierarchy as the dead to whose memory certain rituals are directed. When a sannyåsœ enters a temple, he blesses the idol, because as one who has shed desires and rebirth and who no longer participates in matters of phenomenal existence, he is above the god of the temple, whose interest in worldly affairs entitles him to dwell in a temple.51

The renouncer, on the one hand, is as impure as a dead man and the priest has to use the left hand to deal with him so as not to pollute the food given to other people. On the other hand, he is higher than the god enthroned in the temple whom he is entitled to bless. 10.2.3 The Ritual Formula of Renunciation The procedure of renunciation is long and elaborate. Are all its rites and ceremonies equally necessary for renunciation, or is there an essential component that is responsible for making a person a renouncer? A medieval work addresses this question directly. After describing all the rites associated with this procedure, it concludes: Of the preceding rites, renunciation essentially consists of only three: (1) The declaration of intent . . . ; (2) the proclamation of the praißa; (3) The gift of safety. All other rites, from the nåndœmukha-†råddhas to the taking of the staff, are supplementary. atra sa∫nyåso nåma . . . sa∫kalpaΔ praißoccåraña∫ abhayadåna∫ ceti tritayam eva Ù nåndœmukham årabhya dañ∂agrahañåntakarmakalåpas tv asyaivåõgam ÙÙ52

Praißa, which I have translated as “Call,” is a technical term in the Vedic ritual vocabulary. Within that context it refers to the formulae These verses are cited in YPra 68.30—38. Agehananda Bharati 1970, 156—157. 52 YPra 20.1—2. A similar statement is also made in the Ydhs, 18.

50 51

194

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

used by the Adhvaryu priest, who performs most of the sacrificial acts, to instruct other priests to perform specific procedures. The term is used in the rite of renunciation with reference to the formula: “I have renounced” —sa∫nyasta∫ mayå.53 It is unclear why this formula was given that technical appellation. The declaration “I have renounced” is directed first at the people who are witnessing the ceremony but also at all beings. Immediately after reciting the Call, therefore, the new renouncer gives safety (abhaya, lit. “freedom from fear”) to all beings.54 This is a formal affirmation of his vow never to kill or hurt any living being. The belief that the formula of the Call is the essential element of the rite55 is expressed in the procedure prescribed for a person who is in danger of imminent death. Such a person, as we have seen, may renounce by reciting the Call either orally or mentally. 10.2.4 The Symbols of the Renunciatory State The first section of the renunciatory rite ends with the Call and the granting of safety to all beings and constitutes the essence of renunciation. This part has a largely negative tone, consisting as it does of abandoning various items that define a Brahmin’s life in society, and it accords with the very nature of renunciation, which, as we have seen, is defined as a negative state. At a very practical level, however, a renouncer needed certain basic requisites, such as a begging bowl, to fulfill the duties of his new life. These same articles, technically called måtrå, in time became symbols of his new life. Besides the begging bowl, the most significant were the staff,56 the water pot, the waistband, the loincloth, and the garment. These articles were ritually handed over to the new renouncer in the second part of the renunciatory rite, which part has all the characteristics of an initiatory rite. Indeed, the Katha†ruti (40) uses the term dœkßå (“initiatory consecration”) with reference to this section of the rite. As the earlier part of the rite symbolically expresses the death of the renouncer, so several elements of the second part express the new birth of the renouncer. At the conclusion of the first part, the new renouncer takes off all his clothes and becomes naked. The Sanskrit term is jåtarüpadhara, which literally means “having the form one had at birth.” The renouncer now resembles a newborn infant. ņrU 9; MaiU 116; NpvU 137, 167—8; BSaU 251; PhpU 281. ņrU 9; NpvU 167; PhpU 281—282. 55 Even modern Indian courts have recognized that the recitation of this formula is necessary for a person to be considered a renouncer: “The recitation of the Presha Mantram or the renunciation formula is of course indispensable and has been considered essential by different High Courts.” Judgment in Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir, All India Reporter, 1980, S.C. 708. 53

54

Renunciation in the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads

195

The later documents of the collection of Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads expect the new renouncer to place himself under the direction of an experienced renouncer, who becomes his teacher and father. It is the teacher who gives him a new name and hands over to him the articles that are emblems of his new state. The renouncer accepts them while reciting mantras, underscoring the sacred nature of these articles. According to the Nåradaparivråjaka (169—170), the mantras are as follows: Staff

Protect me, friend, You who are my strength and my friend. You are the bolt of Indra, slaying obstructions. Be my refuge and banish all that is evil.57

Water pot

You are the life of the world! You are the vessel of life! Like a mother, you who are all gentle, Always give me counsel.58

Waistband

Waistband, the support of the loincloth, O·!59

Loincloth

Loincloth, the cover of the private parts, O·!60

Garment

Garment, the sole guardian of the body, protecting against cold, wind, and heat, O·!61

After he is invested with the symbols of his new state, the renouncer is expected to live under the teacher’s guidance for at least one year.62 While the first part of the rite is performed by Brahmin priests, the teacher plays the central role in the second part. Medieval accounts (YPra 21.137—160) of the renunciatory rite highlight its initiatory character by introducing several features borrowed from the rite of Vedic initiation. The teacher, for example, imparts a special mantra —namely the syllable O·— to the student renouncer and, placing the right hand on the student’s head, recites the mantra: Under my will I place your heart; Your mind shall follow mine.

56 For a detailed discussion of the symbolism of the staff, see Olivelle 1986—87, included in this volume as ch. 13. 57 sakhå må gopåyaujaΔ sakhå yo ’sœndrasya vajro ’si vårtraghnaΔ †arma me bhava yat påpa∫ tan nivåraya Ù 58 jagajjœvana∫ jœvanådhårabhüta∫ måteva må mantrayasva sarvadå sarvasaumya Ù 59 kaupœnådhåra∫ ka™isütram om Ù 60 guhyåcchådaka∫ vastram om Ù 61 †œtavåtoßñatråñakara∫ dehaikarakßaña∫ vastram om Ù 62 See NpvU 168—170, 195—196.

196

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Devoted to me alone, you shall rejoice in my word. May B®haspati join you to me. mama vrate h®daya∫ te dadhåmi mama cittam anu citta∫ te astu Ù mama våcam ekavrato jußasva b®haspatiß ™vå niyunaktu mahyam Ù

As these initiatory aspects of the rite indicate, renunciation was viewed not only as the death but also as the new birth of the renouncer.

11. Odes of Renunciation*

In the rite of renunciation (sa∫nyåsa) as described in the Dharma†åstric texts and in special handbooks (paddhati)1 there is little room for spontaneity or emotional outbursts, even though the event is charged with emotion both for the renouncer-to-be and for his family, relations, and friends. Following the ritual custom, the actions, words, and gestures, as well as the material employed in this rite are determined by the authoritative texts. No extemporaneous innovations are permitted. There are, however, instances within the ritual itself which manifest flashes of emotion and allow us to penetrate the façade and get a glimpse of the feelings of the participants. One such instance is when the renouncer-to-be takes leave of his family as he departs from home never to return. Though the occasion is, humanly speaking, a sad one —in fact, the renouncer-to-be as well as his relations are instructed not to cry— nevertheless, true to the spirit of detachment inculcated in the texts, his words are cold and harsh: na me ka†cin nåha∫ kasyacit —“No one belongs to me, nor do I belong to anyone.”2 The same theme is amplified in a more prosaic address recorded elsewhere:3 sa∫sårasya påram aha∫ gantukåmo ’smi Ù mayå sarveßå∫ mamatå tyaktå putraißañå vittaißañå lokaißañå ca tyaktå Ù yußmåbhir mamopari mamatå na kartavyå Ù vighno na vidheyaΔ ÙÙ I am desirous of going to the yonder shore of (the river of) sa∫såra.4 I *

Originally published in Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 20 (1976): 91—100. D. H. Sharma 1939, 49—62. 2 YPra 16.7, Sp1 f. 13a. The same theme is taken up below at v. 15. 3 See Sp1 f. 13a, Psv f. 4b, Sa∫p f. 5a. 4 A common expression meaning liberation (mokßa). 1

198

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

have given up the spirit of possessiveness with regard to everything. I have abandoned the desire for sons, the desire for wealth, and the desire for the worlds.5 You should not cause (me) any hindrance.

A more explicit revelation of these sentiments is found in three groups of verses which the renouncer chants at three of the most important moments in the rite of renunciation. Although not spontaneous outpourings, these verses reflect the state of mind of a person at the moment when he leaves home, family, and security behind and plunges headlong into the unknown —a life without ties and security, at the mercy of others’ generosity. These verses do not occur in the Dharma†åstras or the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads, which contain the oldest descriptions of the rite that we possess. At what period they found their way into the ritual of renunciation is hard to determine. However, they are evidently much older than the works in which they occur, since only verses and formulae of proven antiquity could have conceivably been introduced into the ritual. The following are the sources from which these verses are gathered, together with the manuscripts and editions used and their abbreviations: Paramaha∫sasa∫nyåsavidhi by ‡a∫karåcårya. University of Pennsylvania Library, Ms. no. 87. See Poleman 1938, serial no. 3190. Ms. dated sa∫vat 1790 (=1732 CE). Date of composition unknown. Sa∫p: Sa∫nyåsapaddhati, also called Sa∫nyåsavidhi, by Acyutå†rama. Bombay University Manuscript Catalogue No. 1186. Ms. dated †aka 1726 (=1803 CE). Acyutå†rama was a disciple of Pürñånanda (1578—1628 CE). See Ghurye 1964, 216. Sdœp: Sa∫nyåsadœpikå by Gopœnåtha Agnihotrin. University of Pennsylvania Library Ms. no. 835. See Poleman, 1938, serial no. 3185. Ms. dated sa∫vat 1976 (=1917 CE). Date of composition unknown. Sp: Sa∫nyåsapaddhati, a section of the Sa∫skåraprakå†a of the Pratåpanårasi∫ha by Rudradeva. Date of composition †aka 1632 (= 1709 CE). See Kane 1962—75, I: 585. Ed. and tr. in Olivelle 1986. Sp1: University of Pennsylvania Library Ms. no. 2744. See Poleman 1938, serial no. 3189. Sp2: University of Pennsylvania Library Ms. no. 166. See Poleman 1938, serial no. 3188. Ydhs: Yatidharmasa∫graha by Vi†ve†vara Sarasvatœ. Ånandå†rama Sanskrit Series, 60. Poona: 1909. Vi†ve†vara was the guru of Madhusüdana Sarasvatœ (1540—1647 CE). See Divå∞ji 1927. Psv:

5

See BU 3. 5. 1.

Odes of Renunciation

199

Ypra: Yatidharmaprakå†a by Våsudevå†rama. Ed. and tr. in Olivelle 1976, 1977. References are to the section and phrase numbers of this edition. Våsudeva quotes from Madhusüdana. Hence, his upper limit is the middle of the 17th century CE. 11.1. The nineteen verses of the first group are recited by the renouncer-to-be after he has given the gift of safety to all creatures (abhayadakßiñå)6 and just prior to the recital of the praißa.7 They are found in the following works: Psv ff. 4b—5a; Sa∫p ff. 5a— b; Sdœp f. 7a; Sp1 ff. 13b—14a; Sp2 ff. 19a-20a. The YPra (21.110—113) gives only vv. 9, 12, and 13a—b, where they are to be recited immediately after the abhayadakßiñå, which is performed here after the praißa. A point to be noted in connection with this first group is that, according to the instructions given in our sources, these verses are to be recited by the renouncer-to-be. However, a glance at the text shows that there are sections in it with the verb in the first person where the renouncer is speaking, while other sections contain injunctions directed at him. This makes us surmise that these verses first belonged to a work composed in verse detailing the rite of renunciation. At a later period all these verses, containing both what had to be recited by the renouncer and the author’s instructions regarding the ritual performance, were assimilated into the rite and their original context lost sight of. Thus we have the anomaly of the renouncer giving instructions to himself as to what he should do next. In the translation I have put the words which were originally to have been recited by the renouncer-to-be within quotation marks. As found in our sources, however, these as well as the other sections are to be recited by him. There are two important themes running through these verses. First, in words that sometimes break into poetry but are always charged with emotion, the renouncer-to-be announces that he is renouncing everything and everyone. He neither has any belongings nor does he belong to anyone. He is alone. However, through the knowledge that all beings ultimately rest in the self, he realizes that although he has nothing, yet he does possess everything (v. 13). The second theme is that of non-injury (ahi∫så), ritualized in the abhayadakßiñå. Already alone and helpless, this makes him defenseless against enemies, both men and animals. This theme will be taken up in the second group of verses, which is a hymn of supplication to Vißñu. 6 The rite of abhayadakßiñå consists of pouring water from the cupped hands into water saying: abhaya∫ sarvabhütebhyo mattaΔ svåhå —“I give safety to all creatures, svåhå!” 7 This is the focal point of the entire rite and consists of the formula: sa∫nyasta∫ mayå —“I have renounced,” which is recited first softly, then in a moderate voice, and lastly aloud. This constitutes the actual entry into sa∫nyåsa.

200

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

yatki∫cid bandhana∫ karma k®tam aj∞ånato mayå Ù pramådålasyadoßottha∫ tat sarva∫ sa∫tyajåmy aham Ù tyaktasarvo vi†uddhåtmå gatasnehaΔ †ubhå†ubhaΔ Ù kåmabhogådika∫ sarva∫ tyakta∫ caivam udåharet ÙÙ eßa tyakßåmy aha∫ sarva∫ kåmabhogasukhådikam Ù †oka∫ toßa∫ vivåda∫ ca gandhamålyånulepanam ÙÙ bhüßaña∫ nartana∫ geya∫ dånam ådånam eva ca Ù namaskåra∫ japa∫ homa∫ yå† ca nityakriyå mama ÙÙ nitya∫ naimittika∫ kåmya∫ varñadharmå†ramå† ca ye Ù guñadharmå† ca ye kecic chubhå†ubhaphalåni ca ÙÙ karaña∫ kåryakart®tva∫ kartåra∫ karañaiΔ saha Ù sarvam eva parityajya buddhyådhiß™hitamånasaΔ ÙÙ åtmåna∫ sarvabhütastha∫ sarvabhütåni cåtmani Ù caturvidhasya sannåtmå bhütagråmasya niΔsp®haΔ ÙÙ k®ta∫ ca kårita∫ caiva œpsita∫ cånumoditam Ù sa∫cintya sarvabhütebhyo dadyåd abhayadakßiñåm ÙÙ padbhyå∫ karåbhyå∫ viharan nåha∫ våkkåyamånasaiΔ Ù karißye pråñinå∫ pœ∂å∫ pråñinaΔ santu nirbhayåΔ ÙÙ dehe jale ’∫bare bhümau sthåvarå jaõgamå† ca ye Ù påßåñasa∫pu™e ye ca †leßmavi†leßakå† ca ye ÙÙ lomavastrådidhånyeßu †ayaneßv åsaneßu ye Ù te svapantu vibudhyantu sukha∫ matto bhaya∫ vinå ÙÙ datvaiva∫ sarvabhütebhyaΔ sarvatråbhayadakßiñåm Ù karuño maitrav®tti† ca praj∞åv®ddhi∫ ca sa∫sthitaΔ ÙÙ tato vicintayed dhœmån sarvam åtmani sa∫sthitam Ù ko ‘sti me ka† ca me nåsti †uddha eko ’ham acyutaΔ ÙÙ sa∫sårådityatapto ’ha∫ vipluß™o dehamånase Ù brahmaj∞ånåmbu†œtena si∞ca må∫ våkyavåriñå ÙÙ na me ’sti båndhavaΔ ka†cin muktvåtmåna∫ paråvaram Ù mamåtmaiva paro bandhur ürdhvådhaΔ p®ß™hato ’grataΔ ÙÙ indriyair vißayaiΔ sarvair madhyådyantarbahiΔsthitaΔ Ù vi†ve†varo ’ham åtmaiva sarvaj∞aΔ sarvatomukhaΔ ÙÙ tyaktabhœr abhaya∫ datvå sarvaj∞am ajam œ†varam Ù vyaktåvyakta∫ para∫ †uddha∫ satya∫ ni†citya tatvataΔ ÙÙ etån praißån bruvan †uddho di†a† caivåvalokayan ÙÙ ådityacandråv analo ’nila† ca dyaur bhümir åpo h®daya∫ mana† ca Ù aha† ca råtri† ca ubhe ca sa∫dhye dharmo hi jånåti narasya v®ttam ÙÙ

11.1.1 Critical Apparatus 1. d) sa∫tyajåmy : Sa∫p ca tyajåmy 2. Sdœp om. 2a-b and places 2c-d after 4a-b. a) tyaktasarvo : Psv tyakta∫ sarva∫. b) †ubhå†ubhaΔ : Sa∫p †ubhå†ubha∫. d) caivam : Psv cedam 3. Sdœp om. 3a-b. a) eßa : Sp2 etat, Sa∫p eva∫; tyakßåmy : Sa∫p tyajåmy. a-b) eßa . . . -sukhådikam : Sdœp om. b) -bhoga- : Sp2 bhogåΔ. c) †oka∫ : Sp2 Sdœp roßa∫; †oka∫ toßa∫ : Sa∫p vedå∞gåni 4. Sdœp om. 4c-d. d) nitya- : Sp1 nityåΔ, Sa∫p nitye 5. Sdœp om. vv. 5—8. c) guña- : Psv om 6. d) -ådhiß™hita- : Sp1 åtiß™hita corrected first hand to åveß™ita, Sp2 åtiß™hati, Psv åviß™ita; karaña∫ : Sa∫p kåraña∫

Odes of Renunciation

201

7. Sp1 Sp2 om. 7a-b. a) sarvabhütastha∫ : Sp1 Sp2 Psv sarvabhütasya. c) sannåtmå : Psv Sp2 sattåtmå 8. a) ca kårita∫ : Sp1 caivepsita∫, Sp2 vaivepsita∫. b) œpsita∫ : Sp1 Sp2 vå∞chita∫. c) sa∫cintya : Sp2 sa∫citaΔ 10. Sp1 Sp2 om. 10c-d. a) ’∫bare : Sp1 Sp2 vased. c) -sa∫pu™e : Psv sa∫pu™å. d) †leßmavi†leßakå† : Psv †leßabhi†leßakå∫†, Sdœp †leßavi†leßakå† 11. a) loma- : Sa∫p bhåva, Sdœp loß™a. b) ye : Sdœp ca. c) svapantu : Sa∫p svaya∫bhu. d) sukha∫ matto : Sp1 sukhato mad-, Sp2 sukhato ’stu, Psv sukhamanto 12. Sdœp om. 12c-19. a) datvaiva∫ : Psv dh®tvaiva∫. d) sa∫sthitaΔ : Psv sa∫sthita∫ 13. b) sa∫sthitam : Psv sa∫sthitaΔ. c-d) ko ’sti . . . †uddha : Sa∫p na ka†cin me na kasyåha∫ buddhir 14. a) -åditya- : Sa∫p ådiha. a-b) ’ha∫ vipluß™o : Sp1 Psv ’tivipluß™o, Sp2 ’tivipluß™o corrected to ’ha∫ vipluß™o, Sa∫p ’ha∫ vi†leß™o. b) -månase: Sp1 månasaiΔ, Psv månasa∫ 15. a) ’sti båndhavaΔ ka†cin : Sa∫p syur båndhavåΔ kecin. d) ’grataΔ : Sa∫p yataΔ 16. a) sarvair : Sp1 Sp2 sarva. b) -antar- : Psv anta; -sthitaΔ : Psv sthitaiΔ. c) ’ham åtmaiva : Sp1 Sp2 Psv mahåtmå vai 18. a) bruvan : Sp2 ch®ñvan. b) avalokayan : Psv avalokayet 19. b) mana† : Sa∫p yama†. d) hi : Psv vi11.1.2 Translation 1. “Whatsoever deed leading to bondage that I have committed unaware, all that, the consequence of negligence and sloth, do I totally renounce.” 2. Having abandoned all, pure in heart, unattached, and equal in weal and woe, let him thus proclaim: “Every desire, enjoyment, and the like have I also renounced. 3. Everything shall I renounce —desire, enjoyment, and the like, grief and joy, disputes, scents, garlands, and the anointing of the body, 4. adornment, dancing and singing, the giving and the acceptance (of gifts), paying homage (to men), the muttering of prayers, oblations, and the rites that are obligatory on me, 5. the obligatory (rites), as well as the occasional and the optional, the states of life, the duties of class and rank, and both the pleasant and the unpleasant fruits (of action).”

202

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

6. Having abandoned all —the means of action and the authorship of the act, the agent together with the instruments— his mind controlled by wisdom, 7. (seeing) the self as abiding in all beings and all beings within the self, free of longing towards the four kinds of living beings,8 and with a calm spirit, 8. let him reflect on what he has done and what he has made (others) do, on what he has desired and what he has rejoiced at, and then grant the gift of safety to all creatures: 9. “Wandering about, I shall not cause harm to living beings with my hands or feet, with my speech, body, or mind; may living beings be free from fear. 10. The immobile and the mobile (creatures living) on the body, in water, in the air, and on land, those that (live) between rocks, and those that are let loose by phlegm, 11. those (that live) in the hair, clothes, and the like, in grain, and in beds and seats —may they go to sleep and wake therefrom at ease without any fear of me.” 12. Having thus given the gift of safety to all creatures everywhere, compassionate and of a friendly disposition, steadfast in the increase of wisdom, 13. let the wise man consider everything as abiding in the self: “Who belongs to me? Who, indeed, belongs not to me? —I, who am pure, one, and imperishable, 14. I am burnt by the sun of sa∫såra, scorched in both body and mind; sprinkle me with the water of (thine) speech, cooled by the water of the knowledge of Brahman. 15. No kinsman have I, besides the self —the highest and the lower as well; above and below, behind and in front, the self alone is my highest kin. 16. By reason of the organs and all their objects, abiding in the middle and at the end, within as well as without, the Supreme Lord am I, the self indeed, all-knowing and facing every side.” 17. Discarding fear, having granted (the gift of) safety and truly ascertained the Lord —all-knowing and unborn, manifest as well as unmanifest, supreme, pure, and true—, 8 Viviparous (jaråyuja), oviparous (añ∂aja), produced by sweat (svedaja), and produced through germination (udbhijja).

Odes of Renunciation

203

18. being (himself) pure, reciting these praißas9 and gazing at the quarters, [he should pray:] 19. “Sun and Moon, Fire and Wind, Heaven and Earth, Water, Heart, and Mind, Day and Night, and both the sa∫dhyås [i.e., dawn and dusk], [be my witness];10 for Dharma knows the conduct of man.” 11.2. The second group of five verses is ascribed to Yama, the author of a sm®ti, in all our sources. Unlike in the first group, here it is clear that the first half-verse is the injunction of Yama, while the rest are to be recited by the renouncer. They are recited during the interval between the proclamation of the praißa and his approaching the guru for instruction. These verses are found in the following works: Sdœp ff. 7a-b; Sp1 f. 15a; Sp2 ff. 21b—22a; Ydhs pp. 16—17. The Sa∫p (f. 7b) does not give these verses but instructs the neophyte to set his thoughts on Vißñu (vißñusmaraña) while he is on his way to the guru. We find here the prayer of a man without friend or helper, without any defense against enemies. That he has abandoned all (sa∫nyasta∫ me) is almost a refrain. He has vowed never to injure any living being (v. 23). Not able to protect himself and without a protector on earth, he now turns to the divine protector, Vißñu. tato vißñuprårthanåprakåram åha yamah: 20. datvå toyå∞jali∫ vipro bhaktyå sa∫prårthayed dharim Ù sarvadevåtmake toye toyåhutim aha∫ hare ÙÙ 21. datvå sarvaißañå∫ tyaktvå yußmaccharañam ågataΔ Ù tråhi må∫ sarvaloke†a gatir anyå na vidyate ÙÙ 22. sa∫nyasta∫ me jagannåtha påhi må∫ madhusüdana Ù tråhi må∫ sarvaloke†a våsudeva sanåtana ÙÙ 23. sa∫nyasta∫ me jagadyone puñ∂arœkåkßa mokßada Ù aha∫ sarvåbhaya∫ datvå bhütånå∫ parame†vara ÙÙ 24. yußmaccharañam åpanna∫ tråhi må∫ purußottama ÙÙ

11.2.1 Critical apparatus 20. d) hare : Sp1 Sp2 kare. 9 This may refer to the praißa formula; see above, note 7. It is, however, more likely that here the word praißa is used in a looser sense to mean the preceeding verses, especially because of the use of the plural. 10 These deities are invoked as witnesses of his renunciation. In the sources, immediately after this verse it is said: ådityacandrådœn sarvån devån karmasåkßiño nikhilån gurvådœn bråhmañån sa∫nyåsasåkßitvena dhyåyet —“He should recollect all the gods, such as Sun and Moon, and all the witnesses of ritual acts, Brahmins such as the guru, as witnesses of his renunciation.” See Sp1 f. 13a-b, Sp2 f. 20a-b, Psv f. 5a-b.

204

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

21. c) sarvaloke†a : Sdœp sarvasarve†a. 23—24 Sdœp om. 23—24. 11.2.2 Translation Then, Yama states the manner of propitiating Vißñu: 20-21. The twice-born should offer water from his cupped hands and devoutly supplicate Hari (Vißñu): “I have made an offering of water into water, which contains the nature of all the gods, abandoned all desires, and have come to you, O Hari, for refuge. Protect me, O Lord of all the worlds; no other way can I see! 22. I have renounced, O Lord of the world; protect me, Madhusüdana! Guard me, O Våsudeva, O Lord of all the worlds, the Eternal! 23-24. I have renounced, O Fountain of the world, O Lotus-eyed, O Dispenser of Freedom! I have given safety to all beings, O Lord Supreme, and have come to you for refuge; protect me, O Purußottama!” 11.3. The first five verses of this group, together with the introductory address in prose, are found in the following works: Psv f. 6a; Sa∫p f. 7b; Sdœp f. 7b; Sp1 ff. 15b—16a; Sp2 ff. 23a—23b. After reciting the above hymn to Vißñu, the neophyte stands before the guru, greets him in the customary manner, and recites these verses. Thereafter, he grasps the feet of the guru and recites the formula: yo brahmåñam ... (‡vU 6. 18), after which most texts instruct him to say: adhœhi bhagavo brahma — “Your Reverence, teach me Brahman” (TU 3. 1. 1; cf. YPra 21. 131—136). In Sp1 (f. 16a) and Sp2 (f. 24a), however, before reciting the latter he is instructed to recite vv. 31 and 32 as given below. The former is very similar to v. 14 but fits this context better, and v. 32 is the same as v. 15. These seven verses bring to the fore the primary purpose of renunciation, namely, liberation (mokßa). The words of supplication directed here at the guru are strikingly similar to those addressed earlier to Vißñu. Often the very same expressions are used, e.g., v. 21c-d and v. 26c-d. The concerns expressed, however, are different. The great danger from which the guru is asked to deliver him is sa∫såra itself and its cause, ignorance, which are compared to the scorching sun (v. 14), a burning fire (vv. 28, 31), and a black serpent (v. 30). The guru is able to save the neophyte from much greater a peril than Vißñu. Another point to be noted here is that v. 27, although in the present context it is used to praise the guru, is elsewhere cited as a locus classicus with reference to the qualities that one should look for in a guru (see Sp1 f. 1b; Sp2 f. 1b).

Odes of Renunciation

205

25. †rœguro bhagavann asmåt ghoråt samuddhara Ù asak®dgarbhajanmajaråmarañådyapårasa∫såråd åtmaj∞ånena må∫ tåraya ÙÙ 26. bhütånåm abhaya∫ datvå yußmaccharañam ågataΔ Ù tråhi må∫ yoginåm œ†a nånyas tråtåsti me prabho ÙÙ 27. niΔsp®haΔ sarvataΔ†åntaΔ sarvavidyåvi†åradaΔ Ù sarvasa∫†ayasa∫cchettånalaso gururå∂ ayam ÙÙ 28. tråyasva bho jagannåtha guro sa∫såravahninå Ù dagdha∫ må∫ kåladaß™a∫ ca tvåm aha∫ †araña∫ gataΔ ÙÙ 29. adyaprabh®ti bhütåni na hi∫syåmi kadåcana Ù mahåvrata∫ karißyåmi karmañå manaså girå ÙÙ 30. avidyåk®ßñasarpeña daß™a∫ tadvißapœ∂itam Ù svavåkyåm®tapånena sa∫jœvaya punar m®tam ÙÙ 31. sa∫sårågnisamåviß™a∫ vinaß™adehamånasam Ù brahmaj∞ånåmbu†œtena si∞ca må∫ våkyavåriñå ÙÙ 32. na me ’sti båndhavaΔ ka†cin muktvåtmåna∫ paråvaram Ù mamåtmaiva paro bandhur ürdhvådhaΔ p®ß™hato ’grataΔ ÙÙ

11.3.1 Critical Apparatus 25. Sdœp om. v. 25. a) -guro : Psv, Sa∫p gurur. b) ghoråt : Psv adds sa∫såram, Sa∫p adds sa∫såråd. b-d) samuddhara ... -apårasa∫såråd : Psv Sa∫p om; tåraya : Psv adds bhagavan. 26. d) nånyas : Sp2 nånyat. 27. Sa∫p, Sdœp om. 27. After v. 27 Psv adds tasmåt guru∫ prapadyeta jij∞åsuΔ †reya uttamam Ù brahmany upa†amå†rayam ÙÙ 28. Sdœp om. 28a-b. b) guro : Sa∫p guruΔ. c) dagdha∫ må∫ : Sdœp dagdho ’ha∫; -daß™a∫ ca : Psv kaß™a ca, Sdœp daß™a† ca, Sa∫p sarpeña. d) aha∫ : Sdœp ataΔ; †araña∫ gataΔ : Sp2 Sa∫p †arañågataΔ. 29. c) karißyåmi : Sp2 Psv carißyåmi. 30. c) sva- : Sp1 Sp2 tvad. 31. Psv, Sdœp, Sa∫p om. 31—32. 32. b) paråvaram : Sp1 paråyañam. 11.3.2 Translation 25. “Venerable Master, Lord, lift me up from this dreadful (state). Rescue me from this unbounded cycle of existence subject to repeated birth, old age, death, and the like by (imparting) the knowledge of the self. 26. I have given safety to living beings and have come to you for refuge. Protect me, O Lord of yogins; no other protector, Lord, do I have. 27. Without longing, calm in every way, an expert in every lore, the eradicator of all doubts, without a trace of indolence —you are a king among teachers!

206

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

28. Master, you Lord of the world, protect me, Sir, who am scorched by the fire of sa∫såra and bitten by (the snake of) time; I have come to you for refuge! 29. From today onward I shall never injure any living being. I shall perform the Great Vow in mind, speech, and in deed. 30. I am bitten by the black serpent of ignorance and tormented by its poison. Bring me, who am dead, back to life with that drink of immortality —your own words! 31. I am consumed by the fire of sa∫såra, ruined in both body and mind. Sprinkle me with the water of (your) speech, cooled by the water of the knowledge of Brahman. 32. No kinsman have I, besides the self —the highest and the lower as well; above and below, behind and in front, the self alone is my highest kin.”

12. Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation*

Suicide committed by the young and the old alike, by nobles and peasants, men and women, for what may be termed broadly “religious” motives has been a common phenomenon in the history of India down to the present day.1 It is, however, primarily in the ascetic traditions that suicide came to be considered a proper way, and in some cases the most excellent way, of bringing to an end one’s earthly sojourn. Greek records show that a naked philosopher (gymnosophist) named Kalanos, who accompanied Alexander the Great back from India, burnt himself on a pyre.2 It is, moreover, recorded by Strabo that the Indian ambassadors to Augustus Ceasar were accompanied by a man who committed his naked body to flames.3 These classical accounts are corroborated by the frequent allusions to such suicide in ancient Indian literature and more especially in treatises on the life and conduct of ascetics. Among the Jains the most excellent way to end one’s life is by starvation (sallekhana).4 All the founders of the Jain faith (Jina or Tœrtha∫kara) are said to have committed suicide in this fashion.5 A similar practice existed among the Åjœvakas.6 Buddhism is the only ascetic tradition that firmly disapproved of suicide on any grounds *

Originally published in Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 22(1978): 19—44. For a general description of religious suicide in India, see: Thakur 1963; Kane 1962— 75, II: 924—28; IV: 604—14. 2 See J. W. McCrindle, Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian (London: Trbner, 1877), pp. 106—107; Strabo, Geography, ed. & trans. H. L. Jones (London: William Heinemann, 1930), XV. i. 64, 68. 3 Ibid., XV. i. 73. 4 See Åcåråõgasütra, 1.7.4—8 (Jacobi 1884: 67—78). 5 See Kalpasütra, Lives of the Jinas (Jacobi 1884: 217—79). 6 See Basham 1951: 63—64, 84—90, 127—31. 1

208

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

whatsoever.7 The Buddhist tradition includes the wish to end one’s life among the three desires that feed the fire of existence. Turning to the Brahmanical tradition, we find that a vånaprastha (forest hermit), that is, a member of the third stage of life (å†rama), was permitted to commit suicide when he found himself too feeble to perform the duties of his state.8 The method recommended for him is the so-called Great Journey (mahåprasthåna). It consisted of walking in a northerly or northeasterly direction toward the Himalayan mountains without eating or drinking until one fell dead. The classical treatises of law (Dharma†åstra) make no mention of suicide with reference to world renouncers (sa∫nyåsin), i.e., a member of the fourth stage of life. A verse of Manu,9 moreover, echoes the message of the Buddha: a renouncer should wish neither to die nor to live on. He should be indifferent in this regard as in other matters. Later legal literature, however, as well as the special treatises on renunciation indicate that suicide was customary even among orthodox renouncers. 12.1. Suicide among World Renouncers Suicide in the various ascetic traditions pointed to above has one characteristic in common. It is resorted to at the end of a life of asceticism when the ascetic has already reached perfection, which puts him beyond the sphere of human existence and makes life a purposeless burden. In the orthodox literature on world renunciation (sa∫nyåsa), on the other hand, we find that suicide is enjoined at the very beginning of renunciation rather than as its consummation. In fact, suicide is presented as the concluding act of the initiatory rite of renunciation. This connection between suicide and the rite of renunciation is nowhere as clearly established as in the Yatidharmaprakå†a by Våsudevå†rama, a treatise on world renunciation composed probably in the 17th century CE. The text runs as follows: praißam uktvåbhayadakßiñå∫ ca sarvabhütebhyo datvå vakßyamåñaprakåreña tattvopade†ådinå lokånugrahasyånapekßåyå∫ rogådinå †arœråder bådhåyå∫ vå satyå∫ mahåprasthånådikam eva kuryåt Ù If he is indifferent toward promoting the welfare of the world by imparting the knowledge of the Truth etc. in the manner to be described below, or if he has an affliction of the body etc. due to a sickness and the like, having declared the praißa10 and given the gift of safety to all creatures, he should undertake only (a course) such as the Great Journey. (YPra 17.1—3) 7 In spite of the general rule forbidding suicide, Buddhist literature abounds with instances of religious suicide. See Thakur 1963: 106-—110. 8 See MDh 6.31—32; ÅpDh 2.9.23.2; YDh 3.55; MBh 12.185.1. 9 “He should long neither for death nor for life, but simply await his appointed time, as a servant his wages.” MDh 6.45. 10 Praißa is the technical term for the formula: sa∫nyasta∫ mayå (“I have renounced”). It is recited three times, first softly, then in a medium voice, and finally

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

209

At this point the author quotes two passages, the one from the Ka™ha†ruti Upanißad (2.3) and the other from the Garu∂a Puråña (2.26.5—9, 14—17).11 He then continues: ittha∫ ca vidußå vettum icchunå dañ∂agrahañåntam å†rama∫ sa∫pådya lokånugrahasyånapekßåyå∫ †arœrådibådhåyå∫ vå satyå∫ mahåpathaprasthåna∫ nira†anådika∫ vå vidheyam iti vyavasthitam Ù Thus it is determined that, after entering the stage of life characterized by the carrying of the staff, an enlightened (renouncer) should undertake the Great Journey if he is indifferent toward promoting the welfare of the world, while a seeker after knowledge should undertake a course such as the fast unto death if he is afflicted in the body etc.12

Next, Våsudeva gives the conditions under which a person may undertake the renouncer’s way of life: lokånugrahårtham åtmavedanårtha∫ vå jœvanecchåyå∫ tu digambaro bhütvå pråcyåm udœcyå∫ vå pa∞ca vå sapta vå padåni gacchet Ù tata åcåryeñånyena vå bho bhagava∫s tiß™ha dañ∂akaupœnådika∫ g®håñety uktaΔ prañavena kaupœnådi våsaΔ paridhåya. . . Ù Should he, however, wish to continue living either to promote the welfare of the world [in the case of the enlightened] or to attain the knowledge of the Self [in the case of the seeker after knowledge], removing all his clothes, he should take five or seven steps toward the east or toward the north. Then, requested by the teacher or by some other person: “Your Reverence, please stay. Take up the staff, the loin-cloth, and the rest,” he should wear the loin-cloth and the other clothes with the mystic syllable O·. (YPra 18.1—5.)

Further down, in his summary description of the rite, Våsudeva is even more emphatic. Here the previously required conditions for suicide are omitted. Suicide is given as the rule, whereas the desire to continue living is an exception permitted under certain conditions. . . . iti pa™hitvå mahåprasthåna∫ kuryåt. tattvaj∞ånårtha∫ jœvanecchåyå∫ tu digambaro bhütvå pråcyåm udœcyå∫ vå pa∞ca sapta vå padåni gacchet Ù Having recited [the verses giving safety to all creatures], he should undertake the Great Journey. Should he, however, wish to continue living in order to (acquire) the knowledge of the Truth, removing all his clothes, he should take five or seven steps toward the east or toward the north. (YPra 21.114—18.) aloud. See BDh 2.10.17.27. In the opinion of later authorities, this is the essential act of the rite whereby the subject actually becomes a renouncer. See YDhS, p. 18; YPra 20.1. 11 These two texts are examined below. 12 YPra 17.32. According to this text, an enlightened renouncer alone undertakes the Great Journey, whereas a seeker after knowledge resorts to one of the other four methods of suicide mentioned in the K†rU 2.3. This distinction is unique, and I have not found it in any other text.

210

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

From these passages we can gather the following points: 1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

Persons resorting to renunciation are of two types: the enlightened (vidvat), i.e., one who has already gained the knowledge which leads to liberation (mokßa); and the seeker after knowledge (vividißu), i.e., one who renounces in order to gain that knowledge. Both these types of persons may either commit suicide immediately after renouncing or continue to live as renouncers. The reasons, however, for committing suicide and for desiring to live are different for the two types. An enlightened renouncer commits suicide if he is indifferent toward promoting the welfare of the world. A seeker after knowledge does so if he is suffering from a serious bodily ailment and the like. The former may continue living to impart his knowledge to the world, whereas the latter may do so to gain that knowledge. Further, there is the suggestion, although I do not wish to labor this point, that suicide is the rule and the desire to continue living the exception. Immediately after the praißa formula, whose recitation is considered the formal entry into renunciation, one either commits suicide or takes possession of the requisites necessary for a renouncer’s life. When suicide is not committed, the renouncer takes five or seven symbolic steps toward the east or the north. He is then requested by his teacher or by some other respected person to return.

Of the twenty or so minor Upanißads devoted to the topic of renunciation,13 the Ka™ha†ruti Upanißad, cited by Våsudeva as an authority, is apparently the only one which enjoins suicide immediately after the rite of renunciation. Having described the rite up to the abandonment of the sacred fires and the discarding of the sacrificial cord, it states: ata ürdhvam ana†anam apå∫ prave†am agniprave†a∫ vœrådhvåna∫ mahåprasthåna∫ v®ddhå†rama∫ vå gacchet Ù Thenceforth, he should starve to death, drown himself, enter fire, undertake the path of the heroes [i.e., die in battle] or the Great Journey, or else go to a hermitage.14

This account differs from the more elaborate description of Våsudeva at several points. According to this text, suicide is committed immediately after the abandonment of the sacred fires. No mention is made of the five or seven symbolic steps, of the distinction between the enlightened and the seeker after knowledge, or of the teacher’s plea for the new renouncer to return. Going to a hermitage, i.e., continuing to live, is given merely as one of the options. There are two serious problems raised by the connection between suicide and the rite of renunciation established in the above texts. In 13 These have been edited by Schrader (1912) and Chintamani Dikshit (1929). Unfortunately I was not able to make use of the recent work of Sprockhoff (1976). 14 K†rU 2.3. These are the five classical methods of religious suicide, to which others, such as hanging, stabbing, falling from a precipice or a tree, and taking poison, are added in later literature. These methods are also mentioned in the Månava ‡rautasütra 8.25.15 within the context of sa∫nyåsa as an institution of old age. See Thakur 1963: 111—125.

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

211

general it may be asked how a rite of initiation could end in death by suicide of the initiate. The life of a renouncer is a witness to values that transcend and contradict those of society. Renunciation facilitates the procurement of the liberating knowledge. Death bears no witness, procures no results. In these texts suicide is not even presented as a symbolic gesture of protest. It is enjoined at the conclusion of the renunciatory rite without rhyme or reason, without even a word of explanation. From the standpoint of the å†rama theory, suicide is even more difficult to understand. Manu (4.1; 6.33) declares that the four quarters of a man’s life, each of which is assumed to be twenty-five years long, should be lived in the four stages of life (å†rama). Accordingly, one should follow the code of conduct (dharma) proper to renunciation during the last years of one’s life. It is difficult to see how this can tally with the idea of suicide at the outset of renunciation. The second problem relates to vœrådhvan, literally “path of heroes.” In the Ka™ha†ruti Upanißad cited above, it is mentioned as one of the five methods of suicide. Commentators explain it either as mahåyuddha (“great battle”) or as dharmayuddha (“righteous battle,” or “battle for the sake of righteousness”). It is quite incongruent and, at first sight, implausible that a renouncer, who has taken the vow not to injure any living being, should carry arms in battle. Our doubt as to whether this is, in fact, a method of suicide for the renouncer is strengthened by the fact that the other four methods of suicide are well known in later literature on the subject, together with other methods, such as falling from a precipice or from a branch of a tree. Dying in battle, on the other hand, is enumerated as a method of suicide only in conjunction with the other four methods. These lists have an archaic character. Commentators never explain this particular method, other than to say that it means to die in a righteous battle. To be killed in battle is praised in the epic literature as the best way for a warrior (kßatriya) to end his earthly life.15 Even there, however, it is not taken as a type of suicide. The answers to these questions depend on the solution of a more basic problem: was ritual suicide an integral part of the rite of renunciation from the outset or was it at first an external element which found its way into the rite proper through a process of gradual assimilation? The answer is found in a text (= T) preserved in two recensions, the one (= J) in the Jåbåla Upanißad and the other (= P) in the Paramaha∫saparivråjaka Upanißad. Its archaic nature and the fact that it is found in the Jåbåla Upanißad, which is one of the oldest Upanißads on renunciation,16 makes it the earliest evidence we possess of the connection between renunciation and suicide. We give below the two recensions synoptically arranged. 15 16

See BhG 2.31—37. See Schrader 1912, pp. xxvi—xxxi.

212

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Note: The center column contains the common readings, while the columns on the left and right give the readings peculiar to P and J, respectively. The roman numerals indicate the thematic divisions of T based on my analysis. They are not so indicated in either of the two recensions.

P

I brahmacarya∫ samåpya g®hœ bhavet Ù

J

g®hœ bhütvå vanœ bhavet Ù

g®håd vanœ bhütvå pravrajet Ù yadi vetarathå brahmacaryåd eva pravrajed g®håd vå vanåd vå Ù atha punar avratœ vå vratœ vå snåtako våsnåtako votsannågnir anagniko vå yad ahar eva virajet tad ahar eva pravrajet Ù II iti buddhvå sarvasa∫såreßu virakto brahmacårœ g®hœ vånaprastho vå pitara∫ måtara∫ kalatra∫ putram åptabandhuvarga∫ tadabhåve †ißya∫ sahavåsina∫ vånumodayitvå tad dhaike pråjåpatyåm eveß™i∫ kurvanti Ù tad u tathå na kuryåt Ù ågneyœm (P ågneyåm) eva kuryåt Ù agnir hi

vai pråñaΔ Ù pråñam evaitayå karoti Ù traidhåtavœyåm eva kuryåt Ù eta eva17 trayo dhåtavo yad uta sattva∫ rajas tama iti Ù aya∫ te yonir ®tviyo yato jåto arocathåΔ Ù ta∫ jånann agna årohå’ thå no vardhayå rayim ÙÙ ity anena mantreñågnim åjighret Ù eßa vå agner yonir yaΔ pråñaΔ Ù pråña∫ gaccha svå∫ yoni∫ gaccha

svåhety evam evaitad åha Ù

17 All the manuscripts of P and several of J read etayaiva. For reasons given by Schrader (1912: 351), I believe that this is a scribal error rather than a variant reading of P.

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

213

III P

T

J

gråmåd †rotriyågåråd agnim åh®tya svavidhyuktakrameña pürvavad agnim åjighret Ù yady åturo vå agni∫ na vinded apsu juhuyåt Ù åpo vai sarvå devatåΔ Ù sarvåbhyo devatåbhyo juhomi svåheti hutvoddh®tya prå†nœyåt såjya∫ havir anåmayam Ù [A] mokßamantras trayy eva∫ vindet Ù tad brahma tad upåsitavyam Ù evam evaitad bhagavan Ù iti vai yåj∞avalkyaΔ ÙÙ4ÙÙ [B] atha hainam atriΔ papraccha yåj∞avalkyam Ù p®cchåmi två yåj∞avalkyåyaj∞opavœtœ katha∫ bråhmaña iti Ù sa hovåca yåj∞avalkyaΔ Ù idam evåsya tad yaj∞opavœta∫ ya åtmå Ùprå†yåcamya eßa (J aya∫) vidhir (Δ) pravråjinå∫ vœrådhvåne vånå†ake våpå∫ prave†e vågniprave†e vå mahåprasthåne vå Ù [C] atha parivrå∂ vivarñavåså muñ∂o ’parigrahaΔ †ucir adrohœ bhaikßånno brahmabhüyåya bhavati Ù

214

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

P

IV T yady åturaΔ syån manaså våcå vå sa∫nyaset Ù eßa pånthå(Δ)

J

[D] brahmañå hånuvittas tenaiti sa∫nyåsœ brahmavid iti Ù evam evaißa bhagavan Ù iti vai yåj∞avalkyaΔ ÙÙ5ÙÙ

Translations

P

I T Having completed the studentship, one should become a householder.

From the house [i.e., from the stage of a householder],

J

Having become a householder, one should become a forest hermit;

having become a forest hermit, one should go forth [i.e., become a renouncer]. Or else one may go forth directly from studentship, or from the house or the forest. Otherwise, whether one is under a vow or not, whether one is a snåtaka18 or not, whether one has ceased to keep the sacred fires or has always been without a sacred fire —on whatever day one becomes detached, that very day one should go forth.19

18 A snåtaka (lit., one who has taken a bath) is a person who has taken the ritual bath at the completion of his studentship (brahmacarya). 19 Three optional courses are given here for a person who intends to renounce. 1. He may go through the first three stages of life (å†rama) and then renounce. 2. He may renounce directly from any of them. 3. Even a person who does not belong to any å†rama, e.g., a snåtaka and a widower, may renounce the very day he becomes detached.

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

P

II T

215

J

Having considered that (teaching), a student, householder, or forest hermit who is detached from every existence subject to transmigration, after taking leave of his father, mother, wife, son and all his qualified relations, or, in their absence, of a pupil living with him.20 Now, some, indeed, perform just the oblation to Prajåpati. One should not do it thus. It is the oblation to Agni (fire) that one should perform. For, fire indeed,

“Go to thy birthplace

is breath. It is breath that one cultivates by this (oblation). One should, indeed, perform the oblation to the three elements. These, indeed, are the three elements: goodness, energy, and darkness.21 One should consume the fire22 while reciting the following ritual formula: This is thy due place of birth, Whence born thou didst shine; Mount it, O Agni, knowing it, And make our wealth increase. It is breath, indeed, that is the birthplace of fire. “Go to breath svåhå!” He said: “Yes, indeed, it is so.”23

20 In translating this phrase I have adhered closely to the original Sanskrit where it ends in a gerund and is, thus, grammatically incomplete. This is explainable only if it is a gloss pointing out what should be done before beginning the rite described in section II. The commentators as well as Schrader (1912) take it as a separate sentence belonging to the text proper and connected with the theme of section I. Consequently, they add the word pravrajet (“he should go forth”) to complete the sentence, even though it is not found in any of the manuscripts. 21 In Så∫khya philosophy, these are the three strands (guña) of primal nature (prak®ti) the disturbance of whose equilibrium causes the evolution of the manifest cosmos. 22 This is performed symbolically by inhaling the smoke and warmth of the sacrificial fires. By this rite the renouncer mystically internalizes the fires, homologizing them with his breath. He thus abandons the external fires. This process is called technically agnisamåropa (“the depositing of the fire in the self”). 23 Even though there is no iti before åha, I think that the phrase evam evaitad is the assenting response of the person who asked the initial question. In J that person is Janaka

216

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

III P

T

J

Bringing some fire from the village, [i.e.,] from the house of a learned Bråhmaña, in the manner prescribed in the law of one’s own (Vedic branch), one should consume the fire in the manner described above. If being sick, one is able to obtain any fire, one should offer (the oblation) in water. Water, indeed, (signifies) all the gods. One should offer it, saying: “I offer to all the gods, svåhå!” Then, taking it out (of the vessel) one should eat that salubrious oblation mixed with ghee. [A] The ritual formula of liberation is the threefold (syllable O·). One should consider it thus: it is Brahman, it should be meditated on. “Yes, indeed, it is so,” (said Janaka).24 So said Yåj∞avalkya. [4] [B] Then Atri asked Yåj∞avalkya: “I ask you, Yåj∞avalkya, how can a man who does not wear the sacrificial cord be (regarded as) a Bråhmaña.”25 Yåj∞avalkya replied: “Of such a man the sacrificial cord is his very self.” Having eaten and sipped water, and in P Pitåmaha. In the Upanißads this response indicates that the questioner is satisfied with the answer. See the parallel phrases at the end of addition [A] and section IV. See also BU 3.7.2; 3.9.19—23. 24 In J it is Janaka who asked the initial question which led to the present discourse of Yåj∞avalkya. 25 This difficulty arises because a renouncer discards his sacrificial thread by the investiture of which one becomes a twice-born man. A Bråhmaña is “the highest of the twice-born” (dvijottama). How can a renouncer continue to be a Bråhmaña if he does not

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

217

This is the procedure for renouncers on the occasion of the path of heroes, a fast unto death, entering water or fire, or the Great Journey. [C] Now, a renouncer dressed in discoloured clothes, shaven headed, without possessions, pure, free from malice, and living on begged food, is fit for becoming brahman.

P

IV T If one is at the point of death, one may renounce mentally or orally. This is the path. [J. This path,]26

J

[D] indeed, was discovered by brahman. Along that (path) goes the renouncer who knows brahman. “Yes, indeed, it is so,” (said Atri). So said Yåj∞avalkya.

The text T occurs also in the Yåj∞avalkya Upanißad (313) and the Nåradaparivråjaka Upanißad (149—151). These, however, follow recension J except in a few readings. Hence, I have not considered them separately. There are important additions and omissions in both these versions that throw light on the stages of development of the connection between renunciation and suicide. I will discuss them when I examine these stages. The analysis of the two recensions leads us to the conclusion that P has preserved better the original readings of T. What is, however, even more important for the present study is that P reflects better the original context and the sequence of themes. The reading “From the house” (g®håd) is certainly more original than the parallel reading in J. The verb pravrajet (“one should go forth”) is normally preceded by a word in the ablative, as witnessed by wear the sacrificial thread and has, thus, ceased to be a twice-born? This difficulty is dealt with at length in the PhpU 5, NpvU 3.79—88. 26 A Sanskrit sentence does not need the copula to be complete. Hence, this phrase has to be translated differently (i.e., with or without the copula) depending on whether it is an independent sentence as in P, or the first words of a longer sentence as in J.

218

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

the words brahmacaryåd etc. of the very next sentence.27 Moreover, this reading is supported by the Yåj∞avalkya and Nåradaparivråjaka Upanißads as well as by some manuscripts of J. The phrase “Having considered . . . living with him” (iti buddhvå . . . vånumodayitvå) seems to be a gloss that found its way into the text.28 The other variants of P also appear to be such explanatory glosses: “Go to thy birthplace” (svå∫ yoni∫ gaccha) on “Go to breath” (pråña∫ gaccha); “from the house of a learned Bråhmaña” (†rotriyågåråd) on “from the village” (gråmåd); “in the manner prescribed in the law of one’s own (Vedic branch)” (svavidhyuktakrameña) on “Bringing some fire” (agnim åh®tya). Similarly, the words “being sick” (åturo vå) explain why a person may not be able to find fire. Apart from the above variants, which do not affect significantly either the meaning or the sequence of themes, both recensions are identical up to “. . . salubrious oblation mixed with ghee” (såjya∫ havir anåmayam). At this point J breaks the sequence of themes. It concludes a paragraph with the addition [A], which deals with a topic quite unrelated to the procedure of renunciation. J begins a new paragraph with a question put to Yåj∞navalkya by Atri. This, again, does not quite follow the sequence of themes. Consequently, J is forced to introduce the words “Having eaten and sipped water” (prå†yåcamya) so as to return to the original sequence, viz., the eating of the sacrificial food mentioned just prior to [A]. The inclusion or the omission of the word pravråjinåm (“for renouncers”) does not alter substantially the meaning of the text as a whole. The passage [C] in J is a further digression from the sequence of themes. It is not clear whether [D] is original or a later addition in imitation of the B®hadårañyaka Upanißad, 4.4.9.29 Following, therefore, what I believe to be its original sequence of themes, T describes the rite of renunciation in this order:30 I.

Introduction: qualifications of a person entitled to renounce (adhikårin). One should either pass through the å†ramas (stages of life) or be totally detached. II. First part of the ritual: the sacrifice to Agni and the abandonment of the sacred fires. The concluding words of this section, viz., “He said: ‘Yes, indeed, it is so.’” (evam evaitad åha), indicate that the author is ending one topic and passing on to another (see note 23). 27 The ablative noun indicates the state, condition, or place from which one “goes forth.” This usage of the word pravrajati is exemplified in the stock Buddhist phrase: agårasmå anagåriya∫ pabbajati —“he goes forth from home into the homeless state.” See Mahåvagga, 1.9.1; 1.10.1; 1.38.2; DN ii. 35. 28 See above, note 20. 29 P concludes the description of the rite performed outside the context of immediate death with the words: eßa sa∫nyåsaΔ (“This is renunciation”). This parallels the eßa panthåΔ (“This is the path”) with which it ends the description of the rite performed when death is imminent. The author of P seems to contrast these two rites, calling the former “renunciation” proper and the latter “the path.” 30 The paragraphs of this description follow the sections of T indicated by the Roman numerals. Paragraph V, however, is purely hypothetical, based on the sequence of themes in P.

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

219

III. Digression: renunciation in face of death. The text here introduces a modification of the rite for persons who renounce just prior to death in a battle or suicide. The modified rite ends with the abandonment of the sacred fires. The phrase “one should consume the fire in the manner described above” (pürvavad agnim åjighret), which refers back to the procedure outlined in section II, indicates that this section is a digression from the original sequence of themes. The use of pürvavad (“in the manner described above”), moreover, can be understood only if the author of T was referring to a situation different from that envisaged in II. IV. Continuation of the digression: when death is imminent and there is neither the time nor the strength to perform rites, i.e., when one is an åtura,31 one may renounce mentally or orally.

At this point in the sequence of themes one would have expected T to pick up the original theme and describe the remaining portions of the rite when performed outside the context of death. Nevertheless, J turns to a completely different question, viz., the nature of a paramaha∫sa renouncer. P, however, continues with the description of the rite as performed by a healthy person who intends to continue living.32 We cannot be sure that this description of P agrees verbatim with our hypothetical original T. Nevertheless, it fits perfectly into the sequence of themes in T as outlined above. We can, therefore, safely assume that this description gives the context in which the earlier sections are to be located and understood. I take it to be the hypothetical section V of T and give below a summary of its content. V. Return to theme prior to the digression: after abandoning the sacred fires, healthy persons (svastha) who intend to live as renouncers should perform the remaining portions of the rite up to and including the recitation of the praißa formula and the gift of safety to all creatures (abhayadåna). After that the procedure differs for the two categories of renouncers: i. If the new renouncer has already acquired the liberating knowledge of Brahman (vidvatsa∫nyåsin), he walks naked toward the north. ii. A person who renounces in order to acquire that knowledge (vividißu) is requested by a householder not to depart. He then takes the requisites of a renouncer’s life, such as a staff, a loincloth, and a begging bowl, and goes to a guru.

This section of P contains the passage [C] of recension J and the discussion of a Paramaha∫sa’s characteristics which constitutes the concluding paragraph of the Jåbåla Upanißad. In explaining the crucial section III, classical commentators as well as modern translators have failed to take into account the syntactical connection between eßa vidhiΔ (“This is the procedure”) and the words vœrådhvåne . . . (“on the occasion of the path of heroes . . .”) in the locative case. Both Upanißadbrahmayogin33 and ‡a∫karånan31 “An åtura is a person who expects to die that very moment due to the threat posed by a thief, a tiger, and the like, or that very day due to an illness and the like.” YPra 20.12. 32 See PhpU 3. 33 See Dikshit 1929: 47—48.

220

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

da,34 commenting on Jåbåla Upanißad, take eßa vidhiΔ pravråjinåm (“This is the procedure for renouncers”) as a separate sentence referring back to the procedure of renunciation outlined earlier. They are, however, confronted with the difficulty that only the first part of the rite is described earlier in the text. They try to circumvent this problem by saying that the phrase prå†yåcamya (“having eaten and sipped water”) is a synecdoche, and, hence, indicates the entire rite. Without explaining why the next sentence has all the words in the locative case and is, thus, grammatically incomplete, they state that it gives the five methods of suicide for persons not entitled to renounce but totally detached from worldly affairs.35 Nåråyaña36 agrees with Upanißadbrahmayogin and ‡a∫karånanda in the explanation of the first part. However, he sees the necessary connection between that and the phrase vœrådhvåne. . . . He explains that the reference to suicide is made here because the rites prescribed earlier for renunciation are the same as those performed prior to committing suicide. According to him, therefore, eßa vidhiΔ (“This is the procedure”) has a dual function. First, it points to the preceding description as showing how the rite of renunciation is to be performed. Second, by extended application (atide†a)37 it indicates the rites to be performed on the occasion of suicide. Although I do not accept his interpretation, it is significant that Nåråyaña admits the necessary syntactical connection between these two phrases. Radhakrishnan (1953, 896) follows the commentators in translating this passage. He is thus forced to include long parenthetical remarks to make sense out of it. This is the procedure for becoming a recluse. (For one who is weary of the world but not yet fit to become a recluse the following are prescribed), he may choose a hero’s death (by following the path of the warrior in the battlefield), he may fast unto death, throw himself into water or enter fire (burn himself to death) or perform the last journey (walk on unto death).

These interpreters have failed to recognize the obvious syntactical unity between eßa vidhiΔ (“This is the procedure”) and the phrase vœrådhvåne . . . (“on the occasion of the path of heroes . . .”). This oversight is facilitated by the inclusion of the additions [A] and [B] in recension J, since the commentators interpret this text only as it is found in J.38 34 See Upanißadå∫ SamuccayaΔ (Ånandå†rama Sanskrit Series, No. 29; Poona: 1925), pp. 288—89. 35 According to these authors, those not entitled to renounce include non-Brahmins, sinners, and people not capable of studying. 36 See Upanißadå∫ SamuccayaΔ, ed. cit., pp. 288—89. 37 In the context of the ritual, an atide†a is a rule by which the characteristics of one rite are transferred to other similar rites by way of analogy. See ‡abara’s commentary on the Pms 7.1.12; Kane 1962—75, V: 1322. 38 Upanißadbrahmayogin, for example, does not comment on this passage as found in the PhpU , saying that he has already explained it in the JåbU. As we have seen, the latter

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

221

Further, they fail even to notice that section III repeats a part of the procedure already outlined in section II, let alone to offer an explanation of it. This repetition, as we have seen, is due to the fact that in this section T deals with a new topic, viz., the modified rite of renunciation used before going to battle or committing suicide. Consequently, the phrase eßa vidhiΔ (“This is the procedure”), coming at the end of section III, can refer only to the procedure outlined in that section and not to that in section II. Further, this phrase is syntactically connected with vœrådhvåne. . . . Thus, the meaning of the whole sentence is this: the procedure outlined in III is to be followed when one renounces before going to battle or committing suicide. We are now in a position to resolve the basic problem mentioned earlier: was ritual suicide an integral part of the rite of renunciation from the outset or was it at first an external element which found its way into the rite proper? The text T, which we have just examined, is the earliest evidence we possess of this practice. It records the custom of performing a modified rite of renunciation in the face of death. It is, therefore, in this context that the rite of renunciation became first connected with suicide; suicide, it should be noted, is only one of the several occasions when death is imminent. Persons facing death fell into three categories: i. Those going to battle; ii. Those about to commit suicide; and iii. Those in immediate danger of death (åtura; see note 31). According to T, persons in the first two categories performed the rite of renunciation up to and including the abandonment of the sacred fires, while those in the third renounced by making a mental or a verbal resolution. At this earliest stage, therefore, one renounced because one was about to die. The intention to commit suicide was only one of the several reasons for the imminence of death. Specifically in the context of suicide, therefore, the reason for renunciation was the intention to commit suicide. With the passage of time, several changes took place, as witnessed by the texts of the Yatidharmaprakå†a and the Ka™ha†ruti Upanißad cited above. A. The first category of persons was dealt with separately. Their’s was thought of as a special type of renunciation, called åturasa∫nyåsa.39 B. The first category of persons coalesced with the second so that “going to battle’” came to be considered as a method of suicide. C. The greatest reversal, however, occurred when the resolve to commit suicide was no longer considered the reason for renunciation. Renunciation itself was considered the reason for suicide. is one of the oldest and certainly the most prestigeous of the Upanißads on renunciation. It is the only one cited by ‡a∫kara in his commentary on the VeS (see, I.2.32; II.1.3; III.3.37, 40—41; III.4.17—18, 20; IV.1.3). See also Sure†vara, B®hadårañyaka-upanißad-bhåßya-vårttika, 225. The prestige of the Jåbåla has made these interpretors approach T from the standpoint of J. This, I believe, is one of the major reasons for the misinterpretation of T. 39 The rite of renunciation for a person facing death is normally dealt with after describing the regular rite. See YPra 20. Several complete works are also devoted to this topic. See, India Office Mss. Catalogue, No. 5665.

222

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

The texts we have examined reveal definite stages in the process whereby suicide became assimilated into the rite of renunciation: 1. The earliest stage is reflected in T as preserved in recension P. Renunciation was resorted to by persons whose death was imminent. Of these, those going to battle or about to commit suicide performed the rite of renunciation up to and including the abandonment of fire. 2. The text of the Ka™ha†ruti Upanißad cited above indicates a transitional stage. Unlike T, this passage enjoins suicide after the rite of renunciation. In Sanskrit this required only a minor linguistic change. Nouns originally in the locative are put in the accusative.40 Further, vœrådhvan (“path of heroes”), which precedes the four methods of suicide in T, is placed here before mahåprasthåna (“great journey”). This transfer of position indicates that by the time of this text “path of heroes,” i.e., to die in battle, was considered one of the methods of suicide. Here, as in T, suicide is committed immediately after the abandonment of fire. However, the choice to continue living is given as the sixth option without any indication that one who opted for it had to perform the remaining portion of the rite. The author is probably unaware of this anomaly, since by this time the distinction between the regular form of the rite and the curtailed version used prior to suicide had sunk into oblivion. 3. It is at this stage, reflected in the passages from the Yatidharma prakå†a cited above, that suicide is finally assimilated into the rite to form an integral part of it. According to the account in the Yatidharmaprakå†a, the entire ritual, up to and including the recitation of the praißa formula, is performed irrespective of whether the renouncer intends to continue living or to commit suicide. “Path of the heroes” is explicitly regarded as one of the five classical methods of suicide. Suicide, moreover, is no longer the occasion or the reason for renunciation; renunciation itself becomes the motive for suicide. If suicide is not contemplated, the new renouncer is called back after he has taken five or seven steps. This stage of development is reflected in the emendations of T carried out in the Yåj∞avalkya Upanißad. At the conclusion of the addition [A] in section III, it states: †ikhå∫ yaj∞opavœta∫ chittvå sa∫nyasta∫ mayeti trivåram uccaret —“Having cut off his top-knot and the sacrificial cord, he should declare three times: ‘I have renounced.’” It is evident that the author of this Upanißad is here attempting to “complete” the account of T by inserting the recitation of the praißa, since by that time the modified rite ending in the abandonment of fire was no longer in 40 In the Devanågarœ script, moreover, the locative ending ‘e’ and the accusative ending ‘a∫’ can be easily confused if written carelessly.

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

223

vogue. The phrase eßa vidhiΔ (“This is the procedure”), moreover, forms the conclusion of one paragraph and is thus entirely separated from the rest. Further, the conclusion of section III is completely rearranged by putting the addition [C] before the phrase vœrådhvåne. Then the renouncer, dressed in discoloured clothes, shaven headed, without possessions, pure, free from malice, and living on begged food, is fit for becoming brahman. This is the path of renouncers. (One should resort to) the path of heroes, a fast unto death, entering water or fire, or the Great Journey. This path, indeed, was discovered by brahman. Along that (path) goes the renouncer who knows brahman.

By thus rearranging the contents of T, as found in recension J, the author seeks to point out the “path” of a renouncer who is a seeker after knowledge, as well as that of a renouncer who is enlightened. The latter is the path of suicide. 4. The last stage constitutes a complete reversal of the process. Suicide at the conclusion of the rite of renunciation had become obsolete, a practice referred to in the older texts but no longer in vogue. Thus we find that most later works describing the actual performance of the rite are silent on this point.41 The version of T found in the Nåradaparivråjaka Upanißad reflects this stage. In it this text ends with the question posed at the beginning of addition [B]. The conclusion of section III containing the instruction on suicide is omitted. Texts reflecting this last stage instruct the renouncer, whether he is enlightened or a seeker after knowledge, to remove his clothes and take five or seven symbolic steps. A seeker, however, is requested to return and take possession of a renouncer’s requisites. On this point these texts agree with the account of the Yatidharmaprakå†a. We have seen in T, as preserved in recension P, that when renunciation is resorted to outside the context of suicide or immediate death an enlightened person walks toward the north, i.e., undertakes a life of ceaseless wandering, while a seeker after knowledge is called back. Therefore, the steps taken by the new renouncer may be symbolic of ceaseless wandering. On the other hand, the Great Journey also entails walking toward the north or the northeast till one falls dead through fatigue and starvation. It is possible, therefore, that these steps are a symbol of this archetype of religious suicide. Taking a few steps would then be a symbolic enactment of suicide, the relic of an ancient custom. 41 See YDhs, p. 17; Kamalåkarabha™™a, Nirñayasindhu (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, No. 401, fascicule 22; Benares: 1930), p. 2143; K农nåtha Upådhyåya, Dharmasindhu (Kashi Sanskrit Series, No. 183; Benares: 1968), p. 987.

224

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Our study of the available texts on the connection between suicide and renunciation answers the question with which we started, namely how suicide could form an integral part of an initiation rite. It also provides an answer to our second question, namely, how dying in battle could be appropriate for a renouncer. As we have seen, “the path of heroes” was at first not a method of suicide at all. It was, however, a situation in which the subject was in danger of imminent death. Under this aspect it was similar to suicide. The same confusion which made suicide a part of the renunciatory rite also led to the interpretation of “the path of heroes” as a method of suicide. I have observed the anomaly of suicide at the conclusion of an initiation rite. In resolving it, I noted that at first the practice was to perform the rite of renunciation prior to suicide rather than to commit suicide at the end of the rite. This, in its turn, gives rise to a further anomaly. Why should this rite of initiation be performed prior to imminent death? In other words, what were the reasons for recommending that persons in danger of imminent death perform the rite of renunciation? Neither the treatises on renunciation nor the copious legal texts give a direct answer to this question. Nevertheless, we can gather some of the probable reasons for this practice by examining the beliefs regarding the efficacy of renunciation. A passage of the Garu∂a Puråña (2.26.5—9) cited as an authority in the Yatidharmaprakå†a (17.12—31) gives some of the benefits of renunciation when it is coupled with suicide: Whoever dies after undertaking a fast unto death will discard his human form and become resplendent (as) my equal. The days that a man shall live after making the vow to fast unto death are equal to seasonal sacrifices provided with the most excellent sacrificial fees. Should a man die after renouncing, whether it is done at home or at a sacred bathing place, he too receives twice the aforementioned recompense for each day (that he lives). Should a person who has contracted a major disease die fasting after taking (to renunciation), sickness will not touch him again; he will shine forth in heaven like a god. Should a man renounce when he is mortally afflicted, sickness and great sin will, (in their turn), renounce him in his next birth. k®två niraßana∫ yo hi m®tyum åpnoti ko ’pi cet Ù månußœ∫ tanum uts®jya mama tulyo viråjate ÙÙ yåvanty ahåni jœveta vrate nira†ane k®te Ù kratubhis tåni tulyåni samåptavaradakßiñaiΔ ÙÙ tœrthe g®he vå sa∫nyåsa∫ cœrtvå cen mriyate naraΔ Ù pratyaha∫ labhate so ’pi pürvoktadviguña∫ phalam ÙÙ mahårogasya cotpattau g®hœtvåna†ano m®taΔ Ù na punar jåyate rogo devavad divi råjate ÙÙ åturo yas tu sa∫nyåsa∫ g®hñåti yadi månavaΔ Ù punar jåtaΔ sa sa∫nyasto bhaved rogai† ca påtakaiΔ ÙÙ

There was also the belief that the rite of renunciation wipes away all sins, even those accumulated over many births:

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

225

What needs to be purified is washed with earth and water. A river is purified by its current, a woman defiled in thought by her menstruation, and a Bråhmaña by renunciation. m®ttoyaiΔ †udhyate †odhya∫ nadœ vegena †udhyati Ù rajaså strœ mano duß™å sa∫nyåsena dvijottamåΔ ÙÙ (MDh 5.108) Renunciation burns up all sins, whether they are incurred through birth or committed by one’s own action, as a chaff-fire (burns up the impurities of) gold. ye ca sa∫tånajå doßå ye doßå dehasa∫bhavåΔ Ù praißågnir nirdahet sarvå∫s tußågnir iva kå∞canam ÙÙ (Sa∫U 252)

A verse quoted frequently in treatises on renunciation indicates that renunciation qua talis causes a man to be reborn in the highest of the heavenly worlds, viz., the world of Brahmå. Through renunciation one attains the abode of Brahmå, through detachment the absorption into primal nature, and through knowledge isolation (i.e., liberation). sa∫nyåsåd brahmañaΔ sthåna∫ vairågyåt prak®tau layaΔ Ù j∞ånåt kaivalyam åpnoti tisras tu gatayaΔ sm®tåΔ ÙÙ (YpPa 2.45—46)

These texts reveal a general belief in the efficacy of renunciation to procure a rebirth in a heavenly world —even in that of Brahmå— and to wipe out all sins and impurities. The practice of renouncing in the face of death may owe its origin at least in part to such a belief. A more important clue is given by N®si∫hå†rama in his Vedåntatattvaviveka.42 He first makes the general assertion that renunciation is the means of attaining the liberating knowledge, because it removes the obstacles on the path to that attainment. Consequently, he requires that a person desiring liberation become a renouncer. He is, however, faced with the difficulty that in the Upanißads and other sacred texts many non-renouncers, such as King Janaka, are said to have attained liberation. He overcomes this by asserting that renunciation performed even in a previous birth removes the obstacles in the path of knowledge. Thus a person who is not a renouncer may attain knowledge and liberation by virtue of his renunciation in a previous birth. To buttress his argument he appeals to the injunction of the Jåbåla Upanißad that a person in immediate danger of death may renounce mentally or orally. Since renunciation in general has knowledge as its goal, renunciation in the face of death also should have the same purpose. In the latter case, however, this goal is unattainable immediately because of the imminence of death. 42 Ed. S. Narayana Swamy Sastry, University of Mysore Oriental Research Institute Publications, Sanskrit Series No. 96 (Mysore, 1955), pp. 54—59.

226

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Therefore, according to N®si∫ha, renunciation performed at the approach of death is intended to facilitate the acquisition of the liberating knowledge in the next birth. It is difficult to say whether this is an explanation thought out by later theorists or one of the original reasons that gave rise to the practice of renouncing in the face of death. However, it relates this practice more closely to the original aim of renunciation, namely the attainment of liberation. The practice of resorting to renunciation prior to death in a battle or suicide explains an obscure passage in the Baudhåyana Dharmasütra containing one of the earliest accounts of this rite. After describing the procedure up to the evening fire sacrifice and the vigil kept during the night, Baudhåyana states: ya eva∫ vidvån brahmaråtrim upoßya bråhmaño ‘gnœn samåropya pramœyate sarva∫ påpmåna∫ tarati tarati brahmahatyåm Ù A Brahmin who, knowing this, dies after fasting during the night of brahman and depositing within himself the sacred fires, conquers all sin, even (that of) killing a Brahmin. (BDh 2.17.21)

According to Govinda’s commentary, Baudhåyana simply intends to point out here that even a person who dies after performing this portion of the rite gains the full reward associated with renunciation, as if he had, in fact, completed the entire rite. It is, of course, conceivable that a person may happen to die during the rite of renunciation. However, it seems very unlikely that such a remote possibility was the reason for this statement. I feel that what Baudhåyana had in mind here was the modified procedure of renunciation prior to imminent death either by suicide or due to some other reason. In text T we have seen that under such circumstances the rite ended with the depositing of the fires in the self. Baudhåyana also speaks of death not just at any stage of the rite but after “depositing within himself the sacred fires.” As in T, so in Baudhåyana this statement is made by way of a digression to note a situation in which the rite was concluded at that point. A similar digression is made in another passage ascribed to Baudhåyana.43 After describing the procedure till the vigil of the night prior to renunciation, he states: etåvataiva vidhinå bhikßuΔ syåd åpadi dvijaΔ Ù By this procedure alone should a twice-born become a mendicant during a time of distress.

Further down, after describing the depositing of the fire in the self, he says: 43 See, Pårå†aramådhavœya (Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. XLVII; Bombay: 1893), Vol. I, pt. 2, pp. 158—59.

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

227

etåm avasthå∫ sa∫pråpya m®to ’py ånantyam a†nute Ù After reaching this stage, even if he dies he attains immortality.

Våsudeva (Ypra 8.42) rightly points out that these two statements should be taken together as referring to a person who dies after completing this part of the rite. Here too this digression is understandable only in the light of the fact that the rite ended at that point when it was performed by a person about to die. 12.2. Renunciation and Suicide in Indian Law There exists a great similarity, if not a total identity, between laws governing renunciation and suicide. For the most part they regulate the rites and ceremonies performed on behalf of a person who has died either as a renouncer or by suicide. I give below some examples of these laws: 1. Those who return to the world after renunciation are put on a par with those who vow to commit suicide and then repent. The same technical term, pratyavasita (“relapsed”), is used with reference to both and the same penance is prescribed for their purification.44 Nine types of pratyavasitas are enumerated in the law book of Yama. In that list a relapsed renouncer is placed in the midst of eight types of suicide. One almost gets the impression that for Yama renunciation was not very different from suicide. Those who turn back (after attempting suicide by entering) water or fire, or by hanging, those who revert after renouncing or undertaking a fast unto death, those who (attempt to) kill themselves by taking poison, falling from a precipice, undertaking the great journey, or striking themselves with a weapon —these nine (categories of persons) are called pratyavasita. They are excluded from all social contact. They become purified by performing either the Lunar fast45 or the Hot-arduous46 penance twice. jalågnyudbandhanabhraß™åΔ pravrajyånå†akacyutåΔ Ù vißaprapatanapråya†astraghåtahatå† ca ye ÙÙ navaite pratyavasitåΔ sarvalokabahißk®tåΔ Ù cåndråyañena †udhyanti taptak®cchradvayena vå Ù 47 44

See Kane 1962—75, IV: 113—114. This penance consists of increasing and decreasing by a mouthful the quantity of food eaten each day, according to the waxing and the waning of the moon. One eats fifteen mouthfuls on the full moon day and decreases the food by one mouthful a day until the new moon, on which day one fasts. The intake of food is similarly increased during the second half of the month. See MDh 11.216. 46 This penance consists of consuming hot milk, hot ghee, and hot water, and of inhaling hot air. Each of these is done for three days. See MDh 11.214. 47 Cite in Kane 1962—75, IV: 113, n. 258. 45

228

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

2. Both a renouncer and a suicide are buried, not cremated.48 3. Tears are not be shed and the period of impurity (å†auca) is not observed by the kinsmen at the death of a renouncer or a suicide.49 4. The customary libations (udakakriyå) are not offered in both cases.50 5. The ekodiß™a†råddhas (food offerings intended solely for the newly departed) are not performed for either a renouncer or a suicide.51 6. The rite by which a newly deceased is united with his forefathers (sapiñ∂œkaraña) is not performed in either case.52 7. A rite called nåråyañabali53 is performed for a suicide one year after his death. Thereby he is admitted once again into ritual relationship with his kinsmen. The same rite is performed twelve days after the death of a renouncer. The twelve days here corresponds to the twelve months in the case of a suicide. It is clear, however, that this rite was originally intended only in the case of a suicide, as pointed out by Kane: “The passage quoted by Mitåkßarå54 makes it clear that Nåråyañabali is meant only for those who commit suicide.”55 Medieval digests of law (nibandha) never explain this similarity between laws governing renouncers and suicides. However, these texts as well as treatises on renunciation offer various explanations of these laws in so far as they affect renouncers. For example, it is said that the reason for not observing the period of impurity, for not offering the ekoddiß™a†råddha, and for not performing the sapiñ∂œkaraña is the fact that upon death a renouncer immediately passes to the state of an ancestor (pit®). He does not go through the intervening period during which an ordinary person lives as a ghost (preta).56 However, it is open to question whether these explanations of legal experts, so adept at clarifying every obscurity, were the real reasons for the origin of these laws. 48 See GDh 14.11; BDh 3.11.1; Baudhåyanag®hya†eßasütra, 4.17.14; YPra 71.1—41; Thakur 1963: 54—58. 49 See YDh 3.6, 21; GDh 14.11—12. 50 See MDh 5.89. See also the references in the preceding footnote. 51 See the Mitåkßarå on YDh 3.6. 52 See YPra 71.15—16; Kane 1962—75, IV: 525. 53 See Krick’s (1977) recent important study on the nåråyañabali. It may perhaps become the definitive work in this area and I regret that I was unable to make use of it; the present paper was written prior to its publication. She argues (p. 110) that in the Brahmanical tradition renunciation was conceived as a dœkßå that concluded with the death (or suicide) of the dœkßita. This may suggest different avenues for answering some of the questions raised in this paper. Yet, even though the ritual tradition increasingly came to view renunciation in those terms, it still leaves open the historical question as to how renunciation came to be so viewed. I agree with Krick that the answer may lie in the influence of the hermit (vånaprastha) and warrior traditions in which “death sought after” — great journey, fast unto death, death in battle— was seen as assuring bliss after death. 54 See the Mitåkßarå on YDh 3.6. 55 Kane 1962—75, IV: 303. 56 See YPra 71.15—16.

Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation

229

The present study points to the intimate connection between renunciation and suicide that existed at a certain point in history as one of the possible reasons for the similarity of the laws governing them. Only further research into each of these laws, taking into account also their applicability to categories of persons other than renouncers and suicides, can determine what role, if any, this connection played in their origin.

13. The Renouncer’s Staff : triviß™abdha, tridañ∂a, and ekadañ∂a*

A stick carried in the hand is one of the more interesting themes in the history of religions. Gods and kings, priests and holy men, carry an assortment of sticks: scepter, mace, wand, baton, and the like. Many studies have examined the religious and practical significance of carrying a staff.1 In ancient India the best known examples are associated with the Vedic sacrificer (yajamåna) and the Vedic student (brahmacårin). Both carry staffs made of different wood corresponding to their varña. The G®hya and the Dharma literature contain rules that govern every aspect of their manufacture and use.2 It comes as no surprise then that the staff is also associated in India with holy men. Literary, inscriptional, and art-historical sources indicate that hermits in the woods as well as itinerant mendicants carried staffs.3 Already in Påñini we find the term maskarin, staff bearer, as an epithet for a renouncer.4 Gosåla, the founder of the Åjœvikas, also had the epithet maskarin, and the carrying of a single bamboo staff was a hallmark of Åjœvika ascetics (Basham 1951: 99-100). Jain sources indi* Originally published in Olivelle 1986—87, I: 35—54. For the significance of the practice in Indian religions see Gonda 1964—65. For the ritual use and symbolism of a staff see Gonda 1980: 147—148. Våsudevå†rama clearly states that a renouncer’s staff has both a visible purpose —to ward off cattle, snakes, and the like— and an invisible purpose, for it confers a special quality (sa∫skåra) that eliminates the ghostly state (pretatva) after death (YPra 4.79—84). The Caraka Sa∫hitå gives several reasons why even an ordinary person should carry a staff (Sütrasthåna 5.102), and lists “carrying a staff” among the usual practices of a good man (Sütrasthåna, 8.18—19). 2 See ‡åõG® 2.1.18—24; ņG® 1.19.13; and parallels elsewhere; GDh 1.22—26; ÅpDh 1.1.2.38; MDh 2.45—48. 3 For inscriptional and art-historical material on ‡aiva ascetics, see Lorenzen 1972: 104f, 108, 177f. 4 maskaramaskariñau veñuparivråjakayoΔ —“The terms maskara and maskarin refer to a bamboo and a wandering ascetic, respectively.” Påñini 6.1.154. 1

232

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

cate that Jain monks used a variety of staffs and sticks for several purposes. One type bearing the technical term dañ∂a was used as a walking stick during begging (Deo 1956, 273—74). Buddhist Sanskrit literature uses the term khakkhara for a monk’s staff.5 In none of the other ascetic traditions, however, did the staff assume the centrality that it did in the Brahmanical tradition. It is unclear when the staff became a central element of Brahmanical renunciation. The earliest Dharmasütras contain no evidence regarding the use of a staff.6 Even the Vasiß™ha Dharmasütra, which is the most recent and belongs to the first or second century BCE, makes no reference to a staff, although it contains the longest and the most detailed account of renunciation in all the Dharmasütras. Their silence does not prove that Brahmanical renouncers did not carry staffs; it does indicate, however, that during the time of these Sütras the staff had not become a central symbol of their renunciatory status. Manu (MDh 6.52) is the earliest Dharma†åstric writer to make any reference to a renouncer’s staff. He calls a renouncer dañ∂in, “staff bearer”. Manu is generally assigned to the first or second century of the common era. Other literature belonging roughly to the same period also regard the staff as part of a renouncer’s outfit.7 It is, therefore, likely that by the beginning of the common era the staff had assumed a privileged position within the symbolism of Brahmanical renunciation. Later literature, in fact, refers to renunciation as “the vow that consists of (or ends with) the taking of a staff.”8 13.1. The Symbolism of a Renouncer’s Staff The Brahmanical rite of renunciation has two major parts. The first is renunciation proper in which the candidate abandons family, possessions, fire, and other symbols of his former life, and proclaims: “I have renounced —sa∫nyasta∫ mayå.” The second part has the form of an initiatory rite (dœkßå) and is modeled after the Vedic initiation (upanayana). In this part of the renunciatory rite, as at Vedic initiation, the neophyte’s future guru plays a central role. It is the guru who ritually hands to the new renouncer his staff. Thus, the rules and 5 There are many variants of this term: khakhara, khakharaka, khaõkharaka. Cf. F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary (New Haven, 1953), II, pp. 201—202. Ånanda is depicted in a relief from Sarnath holding “in his right hand his long mendicant staff or khakkhara.” A. Foucher, The Beginnings of Buddhist Art and Other Essays in Indian and Central-Asian Archeology (London, 1917), plate XIX, right column, third from the top. 6 Here we ignore the reference in BDh 2.18.1: ekadañ∂œ tridañ∂œ vå (see Nrd 118). The section that contains this passage is in all likelihood a later addition to the Sütra. Elsewhere I have called it Deutero-Baudhåyana: Olivelle 1984: 87—88; 1993: 86—87. 7 See YDh 3.58; VkhDh 1.9; 2.6, 8; BDh 2.18.1. The MBh contains numerous references to the renouncer’s staff: 12.18.19; 12.39.23; 12.308.8. 8 See, for example, Dåmodaragupta’s Ku™™anœmata (8th-9th cent.), 492.

The Renouncer’s Staff

233

the symbolism surrounding a renouncer’s staff, which we are about to examine, are similar to those of a Vedic student’s staff; but there are interesting and significant differences. The staff of a student or a sacrificer is made from the wood of the Bilva, Palå†a, Va™a, Khadira, Pœlu, or Udumbara,9 depending on his varña. A renouncer, irrespective of his varña, carries a bamboo staff. In the symbolism of initiation bamboo is associated with adulthood. A single bamboo staff is given at the ceremony (samåvartana) that marks the conclusion of the period of Vedic study and the return of the student to his parents’ home to assume the adult responsibilities of marriage and procreation.10 Householders also use single bamboo staffs (Ln 74; MBh 14.45.20). The little we know of the initiation ceremony of a forest hermit indicates that a staff made with two bamboos was also given to him at this rite (VkhDh 2.3). Bamboo is in a special way associated with Indra. His festival centers around a decorated bamboo pole planted in the ground (MBh 1.57.17—24). In initiatory rituals it is addressed as Indra’s bolt (vajra) and asked to protect the one who carries it. Its ritual power seems to be derived from its identification with Indra’s divine weapon, the instrument that destroyed the evil powers and gave birth to the universe. An ascetic’s staff has magical powers. ‡unaΔsakha, for example, burns Yåtudhånœ by striking her on the head with his tridañ∂a.11 The Kathåsaritsågara (18.5.5—16) contains an interesting story of a Kåpålika who brought a dead woman back to life with his magic staff. She was thereafter in his power and followed him everywhere. His magic power left him when her husband got hold of his staff, which he had left on the bank of a river, and threw it away. The size and other specifications of a renouncer’s staff resemble those of a student’s staff (MDh 2.46—47). A verse ascribed to Dattåtreya says: (He should carry) three bamboo staffs, each three-quarters of an inch thick, reaching up to his head, with their bark intact, unblemished, pleasant, free of fissures, undamaged, and containing six, eight, or ten joints that are even and unprotruding. (Ln 76)

It is interesting that the term satvaca, with bark intact, occurs frequently in descriptions of a renouncer’s staff. A student’s staff also is said to have its bark on, but in this case the injunction makes sense, 9 Aegle Marmelos (wood-apple), Butea Frondosa, Ficus Indica (banyan), Acacia Catechu, Careya Arborea, and Ficus Glomerata, respectively. 10 See BDh 1.5.3; 2.6.7; VaDh 12.37; MDh 4.36; ViDh 71.13; YDh 1.133. The G®hyasütras of Manu (1.2.15), ņvalåyana (3.8.1), and Åpastamba (5.12.11) state simply that a snåtaka should take a staff, whereas those of ‡åõkhåyana (3.1.11), Påraskara (2.6.31), Khadira (3.1.26), Gobhila (3.4.27), and Hirañyake†in (1.3.11.7), and the Vaikhånasa-g®hyasütra (2.15) specify a bamboo staff. 11 See MBh 13.95.47—48. Vasiß™ha by means of his dañ∂a overcame all the weapons of Vi†våmitra: Råm 1.54.28; 1.55.13.

234

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

because the trees from which a student’s staff is cut have bark. It is impossible to remove the bark from bamboo, because bamboo has no bark. This anomaly clearly shows the influence of the texts dealing with a student’s staff on the descriptions of a renouncer’s staff. An important difference of bamboo from other woods is that it has joints. This fact has given rise to many taboos and symbolisms. The joints should be smooth, unprotruding, and evenly spaced. A text ascribed to Kapila states that “an ascetic should always avoid a staff that has three, five, seven, nine, or eleven joints” (Ln 72). This implies that it should not have an odd number of joints. The text of Dattåtreya cited above likewise recommends six, eight, or ten joints. A passage cited in several works and sometimes ascribed to Atri gives different names to a renouncer’s staff according to the number of joints it contains: ßa∂bhiΔ sudar†ana∫ prokta∫ nåråyañam athåß™akam Ù gopåla∫ da†abhiΔ prokta∫ dvåda†air våsudevakam Ù caturda†am ananta∫ ca ata ürdhva∫ na dhårayet ÙÙ (A staff) with six (joints) is called Sudar†ana, and one with eight is called Nåråyaña. (A staff) with ten (joints) is called Gopåla, one with twelve is called Våsudeva, and one with fourteen is called Ananta. He should not carry (a staff) with more joints than that.12

These divine names reflect the view current especially in the Vaißñava tradition that the staff is a sacred object and a manifestation of Vißñu. The same text of Atri gives the gender of staffs: a staff with a thick bottom is feminine, a staff whose middle is thick is neuter, and a staff that is even throughout is masculine.13 A På∞caråtra text cited in the Ln (89—91) assigns divine names to the different sections of the staff: tridañ∂asyågrabhåga∫ tu sa∫smaret parameß™hinam Ù dvitœya∫ purußåtmåña∫ vi†våtmåna∫ tu madhyamam ÙÙ turya∫ niv™ttipurußa∫ sarvåtmåna∫ tu pa∞camam Ù tridañ∂a∫ samudåyena vißñurüpa∫ smared yatiΔ ÙÙ Let him think of the top section of the triple staff as Parameß™hin, the second section as Purußåtman, the mid-section as Vi†våtman, the fourth section as Niv®ttipurußa, and the fifth section as Sarvåtman. Let an ascetic think of the whole triple staff as the image of Vißñu.

These five sections most likely refer to the five parts demarcated by the five mudrås discussed below. The triple staff itself is called vißñuliõga, the emblem of Vißñu, and vißñurüpa, the image of Vißñu.14 It parallels the more common †iva12 See Rudradeva, Sa∫nyåsapaddhati (Olivelle 1986), Appendix I.10: pp. 199—200; Sa∫nyåså†ramapaddhati cited in Olivelle 1980, p. 135, n. 17. 13 mülasthüla∫ bhaven nårœ madhyasthüla∫ napu∫sakam Ù samaparvasamåkåraΔ purußo veñur ucyate ÙÙ Ibid., Appendix I.10: p. 200. 14 See ¯å™U 322—324; Ybh 48, 51; Yls II.30; Ln 90—93.

The Renouncer’s Staff

235

liõga, the phallic emblem of ‡iva. The Vaißñava literature, however, does not explain why the triple staff is regarded as vißñuliõga. The only explanation I have come across is a verse cited in the Yls and ascribed to Atri and Dattåtreya: kåñåda†åkyapåßañ∂ais trayœdharmo vilopitaΔ Ù tridañ∂adhåriñå pürva∫ vißñunå rakßitå trayœ ÙÙ The dharma contained in the three Vedas was destroyed by the followers of Kañåda, by the Buddhists, and by heretics. The triple Veda was protected formerly by Vißñu carrying a triple staff.15

Vißñu, or more probably an incarnation of Vißñu, carried a triple staff while defending the triple Veda against heretical attacks. It is thus explicitly associated with the triple Veda; this provides a theological basis both for its sacredness and for the fact that it is made of three staffs tied together. It also explains why it is the liõga of Vißñu, for he carried it in defense of Vedic orthodoxy. A text ascribed to ‡aunaka reads: j∞ånadañ∂o bhaved dhrasvaΔ åtmadañ∂as tu madhyamam Ù vißñudañ∂as tu dœrghaΔ syåt tridañ∂a∫ dhårayed yatiΔ ÙÙ The short is the staff of knowledge, the medium is the staff of the self, the long is the staff of Vißñu: let an ascetic carry the triple staff. (Ln 95)

It is unclear what the “short, medium, and long” refer to. They may refer to the three sizes of a staff —reaching up to the tip of the nose, the forehead, or the hair (MDh 2.46; Ln 69, 76). It is, nevertheless, tempting to see it as a reference to the three staffs, in which case the three would have different lengths. I have yet to find, however, a clear statement regarding the varying lengths of the three staffs that constitute a triple staff. A renouncer who carries this emblem of Vißñu is considered in his turn as a manifestation of Vißñu (PåM 150). A frequently cited text says: våsudevasya dve rüpe cala∫ cåcalam eva ca Ù sa∫nyåsœ tu cala∫ rüpam acala∫ pratimåtmakam ÙÙ There are two forms of Våsudeva: the mobile and the immobile. The mobile form is the renouncer, while the immobile consists of images. (YPra 53.18—19, 28)

This parallels the ‡aivite distinction between the sthåvara (immobile) and the jaõgama (movable), the former standing for the temples and images and the latter for the renouncer (Ramanujan 1973, 20—21). 15 See Yls II.32; Ybh 162. These texts offer no further information on this incarnation of Vißñu. It may be a reference either to Råmånuja or to Bhåskara.

236

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Renouncers are also commonly saluted with the greeting: o∫ namo nåråyañåya —“O· Homage to Nåråyaña!” This salutation assumes the identity between a renouncer and Vißñu, an identification explicitly made in a text ascribed to Dattåtreya: tridañ∂arüpadh®g vipraΔ såkßånnåråyañaΔ sm®taΔ Ù yas ta∫ püjayate bhaktyå vißñus tena prapüjitaΔ ÙÙ aß™åkßareña mantreña nityam nåråyañåtmanå Ù namasyo bhaktibhåvena vißñurüpœ tridañ∂adh®k ÙÙ The sm®tis declare that a Brahmin who carries the image consisting of the triple staff is Nåråyaña in bodily form. He who worships him with devotion worships Vißñu himself. The bearer of the triple staff is a form of Vißñu. He should always be venerated devoutly using the eight-syllabic ritual formula of Nåråyaña. (Yls II.23—24)

Another feature of a staff, namely the bonds that tie the three staffs together, was the subject of symbolic speculation. These bonds are called mudrå, a term that in the post-Tantric devotional practices of Hinduism referred to the hand positions that were considered to have magical efficacy. The bond-mudrås, just like the hand-mudrås, are given names of gods or divine objects. Sources mention five such mudrås: någamudrå, dhenumudrå, para†umudrå, †aõkhamudrå, and brahmamudrå, representing serpent, cow, axe, conch, and Brahmå, respectively (YPra 35.7—18; Ydhs pp. 57—58). Strings made of cotton or of cow’s hair are used to tie the mudrås. The Pa∞camå†ramavidhi (52—55) gives the rite for abandoning the brahma- and the †aõkha-mudrås when an ascetic gives up his emblems and enters the fifth å†rama.16 The sacredness of the mudrås is also indicated by the fact that a renouncer was expected to perform an expiatory rite if one of the mudrås broke (YPra 68.73). The staff is also associated with another sacred article: the water strainer. Water is sacred and purificatory in nature, and the strainer is what makes ordinary water fit for drinking and ritual use. It is normally tied like a flag to the top of a renouncer’s staff (Ln 36—37, 41). A fully equipped staff, therefore, has mudrås and a water strainer attached to it. A text ascribed to Medhåtithi (Ln 120) states that tying a water strainer to the top purifies the staff. According to several passages cited in the Ln (113—118), it appears that the staff had to be thrown away when the water strainer tied to it became damaged or otherwise spoilt. A staff, however, is not simply discarded; it is ritually disposed of, just like any other divine image, by throwing it in a river or a deep pond (YPra 68.78). The sacred staff is regarded as having extraordinary powers, and it is surrounded with taboos. The carrying of the staff is believed to have powerful ritual effects, as is renunciation itself. 17 16

See below, pp. 258—60. A renouncer by his very renunciation rescues from hell several generations of his relations before and after him and takes them to heaven: see Ydhs p. 20. 17

The Renouncer’s Staff

237

One text states that a Brahmin is not released from suffering and from the bondage of birth and death until he carries the emblem of Vißñu, namely the triple staff (Ydhs p. 4). The ritual effect most often mentioned concerns the ghostly state (preta) that immediately follows the death of an individual. This impure and frightening state normally lasts until the rite of sapiñ∂œkaraña on the twelfth day after death. This rite as well as other after-death rites are not performed in the case of a renouncer. The reason is that he is not subject to the ghostly state, and immediately after death reaches the world of the fathers. The abolition of this impure state is the result of the triple staff: tridañ∂agrahañåd eva pretatva∫ naiva jåyate — “The very carrying of the triple staff totally abolishes the ghostly state.” (YPra 71.16). The staff is also used for numerous ritual purposes. When a renouncer visits a place of pilgrimage, he does not perform the rites usually done by ordinary people. Instead, he touches the various holy sites with his staff producing powerful ritual results, such as the liberation of himself and his forefathers: dañ∂a∫ pradar†ayed bhikßur gayå∫ gatvå na piñ∂adaΔ Ù dañ∂a∫ vißñupade sp®ß™vå pit®bhiΔ saha mucyate ÙÙ gayåyå∫ muñ∂ap®ß™he ca küpe yüpe va™e tathå Ù dañ∂a∫ pradar†ayed bhikßuΔ pit®bhiΔ saha mucyate ÙÙ Having gone to Gayå, a mendicant should display his staff and not offer rice balls (to the manes). By touching Vißñu’s footprint (vißñupada) with his staff he will liberate himself together with his forefathers. In Gayå, a mendicant should display his staff at Muñ∂ap®ß™ha, Brahmaküpa, Brahmayüpa, and the banyan tree. He will thus liberate himself together with his forefathers. (YPra 68.65—68)

The staff is also used when a renouncer offers libations (tarpaña). According to one source, he performs the tarpaña of the gods, of the seers, and of the manes by pouring water on the bottom, the middle, and the top of the staff, respectively (YPra 49.17—31). The staff is also used during divine worship and in paying homage to one’s teacher. Several taboos surround the staff. It is, of course, not allowed to come in contact with anything impure, such as a loincloth or a waistband. A renouncer should not carry it while he voids urine or excrement, eats, bathes, or sleeps. Outside these times, a renouncer is expected to carry his staff constantly: dañ∂åtmanos tu sa∫yogaΔ sarvadå tu vidhœyate Ù na dañ∂ena vinå gacched ißukßepatraya∫ budhaΔ ÙÙ It is enjoined that one should always be linked to the staff. Without a staff a wise man should not travel the distance of three bowshots. (BSaU 252.9; YPra 35.31)

238

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Some texts permit a renouncer to get his pupil to carry his staff (YPra 35.34—35), while others prohibit this practice (Ln 97). The contact between the renouncer’s body and his staff appears to be surrounded with magical properties. Thus, a renouncer is warned against letting anyone pass between himself and his staff. If he lets that happen, he is required to perform various penances depending on the caste and level of purity of the person who has passed between (YPra 68.73—77). A similar prohibition exists in the case of a Vedic student. What Gonda (1964—65: 271) says in connection with the student is equally applicable to a renouncer: (This prohibition) is an indicium of the double belief that the brahmacårin should not be separated from that power-bearer, his staff, and that another person passing between himself and this object should intercept the unseen connections between them or destroy the valuable influence exerted by the staff upon his (sic) legitimate owner. Interruption of a visible or invisible “chain” or association can in performing rites or in undergoing a consecratory ceremony be dangerous and nullify all the efforts of those concerned.

13.2. The Single Staff and the Triple Staff: The Problem At least by the first few centuries of the common era two customs had arisen with regard to the manufacture of a staff, both of which found a place within the broad tradition of Brahmanical renunciation. According to one custom, a renouncer’s staff was made by tying three bamboos together. It is referred to by the technical term tridañ∂a (triple staff). The other custom was to carry a single bamboo as a staff (ekadañ∂a). There has been a good deal of confusion among scholars regarding the origin of these customs and the identity of medieval ascetic groups with the titles ekadañ∂in (“single-staffed”) and tridañ∂in (“triple-staffed”). Ghurye (1964, 71—72), for example, identifies the former as ‡aivas and the latter as Vaißñavas. This is only partially true, for many ascetics belonging to the Da†anåmin orders carry single staffs even though they are Vaißñavas.18 Basham assumes that a tridañ∂in is a ‡aiva, while an ekadañ∂in is a Vaißñava, even though Mallinåtha’s commentary on the Bha™™ikåvya (vv. 61—63), on which Basham bases his argument, provides no support for this identification.19 There is no evidence for this assumption, unless Basham has confused tridañ∂a with 18 Many of the medieval Da†anåmi handbooks for renouncers betray a strong Vaißñava tendency (see, for example, Ydhs and Ypra). This ambiguity was noticed a century ago by Wilson 1972, 108—115. 19 “Mallinåtha’s commentary states that he must have been a tridañ∂in, or ‡aivite ascetic, for he is said to have a topknot, whereas the ekadañ∂ins or Vaißñavite ascetics, with whom Åjœvikas were sometimes included, did not wear topknots.” Basham 1951, 166. Mallinåtha, however, merely says: dañ∂avån tridañ∂œty arthaΔ ata eva †ikhœty uktam, ekadañ∂inaΔ †ikhåbhåvåt, without identifying the two classes. The likely explanation is that

The Renouncer’s Staff

239

the ‡aiva tri†üla. Most of the Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads and many medieval legal texts (nibandha) consider the two customs not as sectarian badges but as based on the fourfold classification of renouncers: the Ku™œcakas and Bahüdakas carry triple staffs, while the Ha∫sas and Paramaha∫sas carry single staffs. This interpretive tradition obviously favors the single staff, for it signals an ascetic’s advance in renunciation. All these identifications are bound to be inexact, because the two customs were adopted by a variety of groups for quite different reasons. The context, therefore, is the only clue to the identity of the individual or group bearing the names ekadañ∂in or tridañ∂in. Modern scholarship, much like the native tradition itself, has thrown little light on the origin of these two customs. Farquhar (1925, 481) admits the problem candidly: There are two orders of sannyåsœs, Ekadañ∂œs, who carry a single dañ∂a, rod, and Tridañ∂œs, who carry a triple dañ∂a. These two names are found in the Mahåbhårata, but no scholar, so far as the present writer knows, has ventured an opinion as to what the original distinction between them was.

D. H. Sharma (1939, 36) notes the confusion of the native tradition itself on this point: It is no wonder if Farquhar is in difficulty to find “the original distinction” between “ekadañ∂in” and “tridañ∂in”. For, not only in the Mahåbhårata, but even in the following works which have to be taken into consideration for deciding the question, there are contradictory injunctions prescribing one or three or none of the staves.

The problem is exacerbated by a fact that has generally gone unnoticed. Scholars have followed the medieval Indian authors in assuming that the term tridañ∂a and its equivalents found in the ancient documents mean the same as they do in the medieval tradition; that is, they consider them to refer to three bamboo staffs tied together and carried as a walking stick. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. As late a text as Yådavaprakå†a’s Yatidharmasamuccaya (11th century) makes a distinction between tridañ∂a and triviß™abdha, two types of sticks carried by renouncers. Yådava cites a verse from Likhita: †ikya∫ sakavaca∫ påtra∫ triviß™abdhena sa∫yutam Ù baddha∫ jalapavitreña tridañ∂a∫ vartulåsanam ÙÙ †ikhå∫ yaj∞opavœta∫ ca †aucårtham api kuñ∂ikåm Ù sarvadå dhårayed gacchann åsœno våpi vå †uciΔ ÙÙ A sling and a bowl with a cover tied to a triple stick (triviß™abdha), a triple staff (tridañ∂a) tied with the water strainer, a round stool, a topknot, a Mallinåtha viewed the two within the fourfold division of renouncers. In that scheme the tridañ∂ins, i.e., the Ku™icakas and Bahüdakas, wear topknots, whereas the ekadañ∂ins, i.e., Ha∫sas and Paramaha∫sas, do not. On this confusion, see Lorenzen 1972, 105.

240

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

sacrificial cord, and also a water pot for use in purifications: whether he is walking or is seated, let a pure (ascetic) always carry these. (Ln 36—37)

It is clear that in this passage triviß™abdha is different from tridañ∂a. The former is used to carry a bowl hung from a sling. The sling, much like the present-day macrame pot-hangers, was tied to the triviß™abdha. Yådava makes this distinction clearer in his comments on a verse from Vißñu: upavœta∫ tridañ∂a∫ ca påtra∫ jalapavitrakam Ù kaupœna∫ ka™isütra∫ ca na tyåjya∫ yåvadåyußam ÙÙ Sacrificial cord, triple staff (tridañ∂a), bowl, water strainer, loincloth, and waistband: one should not abandon these as long as one lives. (Ln 48)

Yådava observes (Ln 49) that the mention of the bowl implies that a renouncer should also take the other items associated with a bowl, namely the sling, lid, and triviß™abdha. If the latter was seen by Yådava as identical with tridañ∂a, then its inclusion in the explanation would have been unnecessary, for tridañ∂a is already mentioned in the verse. As opposed to the other sources cited below, Yådava appears to assume that the triviß™abdha is used to carry the begging bowl instead of the water pot. A text of Jamadagni cited by Yådava also points to the distinction between these two staffs: tridañ∂e tu na badhnœyåt kaupœna∫ ka™iveß™anam Ù yo mohåd bandhana∫ kuryåt tridañ∂am avamanyate ÙÙ tridañ∂am anyadañ∂ena sa∫gata∫ cet pramådataΔ Ù prakßålya m®jjalair bhikßuΔ pråñåyåmatraya∫ caret ÙÙ Let him not tie the loincloth or the waistband to the triple staff (tridañ∂a). He who foolishly ties them shows disrespect to the triple staff. If through negligence a mendicant lets his triple staff (tridañ∂a) come into contact with the other staff (anyadañ∂a), he should wash it [triple staff] with earth and water, and control his breath three times. (Ln 122—123)

The “other staff” of this passage must refer to either the triviß™abdha or a third type of stick that was considered to be impure. Lists of articles possessed by renouncers also indicate that they carried at least two types of sticks. A list ascribed to Baudhåyana of twenty-one items gives tridañ∂a as the first item and triviß™abdha as the fourteenth.20 Several lists cited by Yådava also present these two as separate items (Ln 36—37, 39). Listing them separately makes no sense if they refer to the same item. This clear distinction between tridañ∂a and triviß™abdha, however, cannot be discerned in the ancient documents. As we shall see, they frequently use the two terms synonymously with reference to an ascetic’s tripod. 20

See PåM I.2. pp. 157—158; YPra 8.4—25.

The Renouncer’s Staff

241

Art-historical sources confirm that the triviß™abdha or tridañ∂a was in fact a tripod that was used both to hang a water pot and to carry it while travelling. Depictions of the Buddha’s death (parinirvåña) show what a tripod looked like. According to the Buddhist tradition the last convert of the Buddha was a Brahmanical ascetic named Subhadra (DN II.152). A†vaghoßa identifies him as an ascetic who carried a tridañ∂a and says that he became enlightened and died just before the Buddha.21 In almost all depictions of the Buddha’s death Subhadra is seated cross-legged in the foreground. A tripod is almost always by his side. It is made with three sticks of equal size tied together three-quarters of the way to the top. From this knot hangs the sling in which the water pot is suspended. In these depictions the tripod is standing with its three legs spread apart on the ground. The water pot is hanging in the middle of the three legs (see Fig. 1).22

Fig. 1 Subhadra with the tripod from a Ghandaran relief in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

A depiction of Råvaña in an ascetic’s disguise approaching Sœtå23 shows how the tripod with the water pot was carried while travelling. 21

A†vaghoßa, Buddhacarita, 26: 1—24. For a discussion of the artistic representations of Buddha’s death see Grnwedel 1972, 117—125. The most clear and detailed depiction I have seen is a Gandharan relief in the Victoria and Albert Museum: see M. Hallade, The Gandhara Style and the Evolution of Buddhist Art (London, 1968), plate 103 (see Figure 1). A close up of this relief is given in The Way of the Buddha (Delhi: Government of India, nd), p. 110, plate 64. For other examples see, ibid., p. 110, plate 65; Hallade, The Gandhara Style, plate 102; B. Rowland, The Art and Architecture of India (Penguin Books, 1953), plate 72; R.L. d’Argeneé and T. Tse, Indian and South-East Asian Stone Sculptures from the Avery Brundage Collection (The Pasadena Art Museum, 1969), p. 26; A. Foucher, The Beginnings of Buddhist Art, plate IV. Subhadra with his tripod is so closely associated with the parinirvåña that he is found even in small depictions of the event where the sculptor had to work in a very restricted area: see Williams 1982: plate 71; A. K. Coomaraswamy, History of Indian and Indonesian Art (New York, 1965, reprint of 1927), plate XXV, figure 91. 23 Nåchnå, Råmåyaña scene, circa 500—510 c.e. See Williams 1982: plate 166 (see Figure 2). The Råmåyaña tells us that Råvaña was disguised as a renouncer (parivråjakarüpadh®k: 3.44.2) and that on his left shoulder he carried a stick and a water pot (våme cå∫se ’vasajyåtha †ubhe yaß™ikamañ∂alü: 3.44.3). The stick, as the sculpture indicates, probably refers to the tripod from which the pot was suspended. In a Gandhara depiction of the Mallas preserving the Buddha’s body in a coffin there is a standing man holding in his left 22

242

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

An ascetic’s tripod, much like a modern tripod for cameras, was collapsible. When collapsed it was held by the bottom with the top resting on the shoulder. The sling with the water pot hung behind the shoulder (see Fig. 2). The purpose of this contraption was probably to ensure that the water pot would always remain pure and above the ground and that water would not spill.

Fig. 2 Sœtå and Råvana in an ascetic’s disguise from a Råmåyana scene, Nåchnå

Judging from these depictions, I estimate the length of the tripod to be approximately half the height of the individual carrying it. Thus in most scenes of Subhadra the free-standing tripod with its legs extended is approximately the same height as Subhadra seated cross-legged. Literary sources confirm that the triple stick was used to carry the water pot. The Jåtaka commentary explains the term tedañ∂iko as a class of ascetics who carry tripods for placing their water pots: tedañ∂iko ti kuñ∂ika∫ ™hapanatthåya tidañ∂a∫ gahetvå caranto.24 Båña, in his description of Jåbåli, says that the sage was seated with the tripod containing his water pot by his side.25 Pata∞jali indicates the close association between a renouncer and the triviß™abdha when he uses it as an example of inference: dhüma∫ d®ß™vågnir atreti gamyate triviß™abdhaka∫ ca d®ß™vå parivråjaka iti — “When we see smoke we infer the presence of fire there, and when we hand what appears to be three short sticks tied together and resting on his left shoulder. See The Way of the Buddha, p. 113, plate 70. The same figure appears in other depictions of the parinirvåña scene: see Grnwedel 1972: figures 74 and 77. Grnwedel (1972: 113—114) considers it likely that he is Mahåkå†yapa. 24 Tirœ™avacchajåtaka (Jåtaka II.316). 25 åsannavartinå mandåkinœsalilapürñena tridañ∂opaviß™ena spha™ikakamañ∂alunå vikacapuñ∂arœkarå†im iva råjaha∫senopa†obhamånam. Båña, Kådambarœ, Peterson’s edition, p. 38.

The Renouncer’s Staff

243

see a triviß™abdhaka we infer the presence of a wandering ascetic.”26 Many scholars have taken triviß™abdhaka in Pata∞jali to mean a triple staff in its later sense as a walking stick.27 S.D. Joshi is quite correct in translating it as “tripod.”28 One infers the presence of fire when one sees smoke without seeing the fire, for if one sees both an inference is not required. Similarly, one needs to see a triviß™abdha without seeing an ascetic in order to draw an inference. It is somewhat unlikely that one would see a walking stick without seeing the person carrying it. On the other hand, the tripod is meant to be planted on the ground when the ascetic is not travelling. Hence, it may have been commonly seen without its owner. An expression used in the Mahåbhårata indicates this practice. ‡unaΔsakha, having killed Yåtudhånœ by striking her with his tridañ∂a, sat on the grass after planting it on the ground: bhuvi tridañ∂a∫ viß™abhya †ådvale samupåvi†at (MBh 13.95.49). The verb used for “planting” is significant: viß™abhya indicates the placing of the tripod with its legs extended, and from its root is derived the past participle triviß™abdha. Another common simile found in ancient documents supports our view that an ascetic’s tridañ∂a was a tripod. Manu (MDh 9.296) compares the seven costituent elements of a kingdom —king, minister, realm, fortified city, treasury, army, and ally —to a tridañ∂a; none is more important than the others, because each is needed to sustain the others.29 Kane (1962—75: III, 18) misses the point when he translates the verse: “Just as among the three staves tied together (by a rope of cow’s hair) used by a sannyåsin no particular staff is superior (to the others), so among the seven elements of the state no particular one can be said to excel the others.” The tridañ∂a that forms the basis of the simile is not the walking stick made by tying three reeds together but the tripod used to carry the water pot. Each leg of the tripod is as important as the others because without all three the tripod will not stand; similarly if even one element of the kingdom is weak then the entire kingdom is liable to collapse. A similar comparison is found in the medical text Carakasa∫hitå ( I.46.): sattvam åtmå †arœra∫ ca trayam etat tridañ∂avat Ù lokas tiß™hati sa∫yogåt tatra sarva∫ pratiß™hitam ÙÙ Mind, soul, and body —these three are like a tridañ∂a. Their union supports the world, and everything is established in them.

Here too the simile comes to life only if tridañ∂a means a tripod. The above citations are significant also in another sense. They indiMahåbhåßya on Påñini 2.1.1 (I, p. 365). See, for example, Kane 1962—75: II, 936; Ghurye 1964, 71. 28 Pata∞jali’s Vyåkaraña-Mahåbhåßya. Vol. 1 (Poona: University of Poona, 1968), p. 89. 29 A very similar verse is found in the MBh 12.308.155. 26 27

244

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

cate that in ancient times the terms tridañ∂a and triviß™abdha were used interchangeably with reference to the tripod. Pata∞jali’s use of the tripod as an example of inference, however, establishes an important point: wandering ascetics were closely identified with the tripod. Numerous examples of this connection are found in the Mahåbhårata.30 One of the most interesting occurs in the debate between King Janaka and the female mendicant Sulabhå (MBh 12.308) in which the tridañ∂a is considered the emblem of ascetics as the royal parasol (chattra) is that of kings (see especially verses 19, 42, 47—49, 56). The above discussion permits us to draw some conclusions: 1. In ancient documents tridañ∂a often means a tripod used to carry a water pot. 2. The two terms tridañ∂a and triviß™abdha are frequently used as synonyms with reference to the tripod.31 3. Unless the context is clear, it is incorrect to assume that tridañ∂a or triviß™abdha in these documents refer to the walking stick made of three reeds, as it does in medieval texts. To complicate matters still further there is evidence of another type of stick carried by ancient Indian ascetics. This was a shoulder pole used to carry an ascetic’s belongings, which were hung from one end. The Påli literature uses the terms khårœkåja, khårœbhåra, and khårœvidha (-vivadha) for such a pole.32 Båña in his Harßacarita gives us a good description of such a pole, which he calls yogabhåra. Its end was tied with a complicated fastening of hair rope to which were attached the following articles: dirt scraper, sieve of bamboo bark, loincloth, begging bowl, water pot placed in a tripod, sandals, and a bundle of books.33 It is interesting that in this description the tripod itself was carried tied to the shoulder pole.34 In the Brahmanical tradition the rite of renunciation increasingly took on the aspects of an initiatory rite (dœkßå). It is probably within this context that the staff, which was a common element of all Brahmanical initiations, came into prominence. The tradition, how30

MBh 12.18.19, 32; 12.39.23; 13.129.22.

31 See especially the debate between Janaka and Sulabhå (MBh 12.308) where tridañ∂a

is used in verses 8, 19, 42, 56, and 155, and triviß™abdha in verse 47. 32 See DN I.101; SN I.78 (= Udåna 65), 169; Jåtaka III.83; V. 204; VI.500. Olivelle 1974: 20. 33 K.P. Parab’s edition (Bombay, 1946), Ch. 3, pp. 101—102. E. B. Cowell and F.W. Thomas’s translation (reprint, Delhi, 1968), p. 86. 34 In some depictions of the Buddha’s death there is a figure standing at the foot of the Buddha. He carries a short staff in his left hand, the top of the staff resting on his left shoulder. Sometimes the staff consists of a number of sticks tied together close to the top. In other depictions it appears to be a single staff but the upper end is broader or forked. Grnwedel (1972, 114) thinks that it “might be intended for a sort of noose or loop at the upper end of it,” and that the figure may be Mahåkå†yapa. The same figure is clearly seen in a Gandharan relief showing the Mallas preserving the Buddha’s body in a coffin. There he carries what appears to be three short sticks tied together at the top: see The Way of The Buddha, p. 113, plate 70. This stick may be either a tripod or a shoulder pole to carry one’s belongings. See Grnwedel 1972, 113—114, 118—119, and figures 70, 72, 73, 74, 77.

The Renouncer’s Staff

245

ever, is split regarding the type of staff —single or triple— used at the initiatory rite. This is the root of the present controversy. What is clear, however, is that once the practice of carrying an initiatory staff became normative the hermeneutical tradition came to interpret tridañ∂a occurring in the ancient texts to mean the triple staff taken at initiation. This is true in both Advaita and Vi†iß™ådvaita literature. It is not altogether clear what historical connection exists between the tridañ∂a as tripod and the tridañ∂a as triple staff. One may, however, wonder why it was necessary to tie three bamboos to form a staff when it would have been easier to find a bamboo thick enough to be used as a staff. This after all was the practice both among those who carried a single staff and in the homecoming ceremony of a Vedic student (snåtaka). It may not be too farfetched to see a connection between the tripod and the triple staff. The sources indicate that those who carried the tripod were by and large Brahmins. This identification fits well with the later tradition of the triple staff; it is connected with the mainstream of the Brahmanical tradition to a greater degree than the single staff. A clue to this transformation may be found in the prohibition of a pot (kuñ∂ikå) during the Kali age recorded by Yådava.35 The kuñ∂ikå is the pot carried in a tripod. When for some reason the kuñ∂ikå fell into disuse or disgrace, is it possible that the tripod continued to be carried but only as a staff? The historical connections, if there were any, were soon forgotten. The triple staff given at the initiatory rite came to be imbued with new symbolisms. I have examined one possible symbolism elsewhere and shall discuss it briefly here.36 We have already mentioned that a single bamboo staff is given to the returning Vedic scholar (snåtaka) at the ceremony of samåvartana (see above note 10). A single bamboo was also the staff of a householder. The only description we possess of the rite for becoming a forest hermit (VkhDh 2.1—4) prescribes a double bamboo staff, that is, a staff made by tying two bamboos together. At renunciation, finally, a triple staff is given to the initiate. The progressive increase in the number of bamboos cannot be accidental. It appears to indicate a progress that corresponds to the classical å†rama system. The ritual formulae used in taking a staff shows a similar increase. The snåtaka recites one formula: “On the impulse of god Savit® I take thee with the arms of the A†vins, with the hands of Püßan.”37 The hermit recites the same formula plus another: “My staff which fell down to the ground in the open air, that I take up again for the sake of long life, of holiness, of holy lustre.” In the VkhDh (2.8) See Ln 124—126. For a discussion on kuñ∂ikå see Sprockhoff 1976, 43—46. See Olivelle 1984, 121—126. In that article, written in 1977 although published only in 1984, I considered this symbolism to be the historical reason for tying three sticks together to form a staff. I now feel that that symbolism may have been created post factum, and that the historical roots of the triple staff have to be searched for elsewhere. 37 See Hirañyake†i G®hyasütra, 1.3.11.7; Vaikhånasa G®hyasütra, 2.15. 35

36

246

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

account of the renunciatory rite, the renouncer while taking the triple staff recites these two formulae plus a third: “Friend, protect me.” Each bamboo appears to be addressed with a special formula, the number of formulae increasing with the number of bamboos. At least in the tradition represented by the Vaikhånasa Sütra, therefore, the number of reeds in the staff appears to correspond to the adult å†rama one is entering, adulthood being symbolized by the type of wood, namely bamboo. In the ancient period, therefore, the terms tridañ∂a and tridañ∂in did not connote sectarian affiliations. They were used to indicate a broad class of ascetics who carried tripods for their water pots. These ascetics appear to have been Brahmins, and the term tridañ∂in probably indicated ascetics in the mainstream of Bråhmañism. Many of them appear to have been wandering mendicants (parivråjaka), although it is not possible to restrict the use of the term to such ascetics; even ascetics that are traditionally viewed as hermits (vånaprastha or vaikhånasa), such as Jåbåli in the Kådambarœ account, are depicted as carrying tripods. By extension, therefore, we must conclude that the practice of carrying a single staff has other historical roots. It may also be safe to assume that this custom was not as closely associated with the Brahmanical mainstream as the triple staff. The medieval controversies that we are examining bear this out, for the single-staffed ascetics are regularly accused of breaking the Brahmanical code. 13.3. The Single Staff and the Triple Staff: The Controversy At least by the time of Bhåskara (8th cent. CE), the Brahmanical tradition of renunciation had split into two factions. According to one, renunciation entailed the total withdrawal from all ritual activities. The other considered some form of ritual life, in keeping with the dharma of one’s å†rama, an essential feature even of renunciation. That the first faction was connected initially with the Så∫khya system is indicated by several statements of Bhåskara.38 The main proponents of this view during the time of Bhåskara, however, were the Advaita followers of ‡a∫kara. Bhåskara calls them the “single-staffed” —ekavaiñavinaΔ, ekaveñupåñayaΔ.39 ‡a∫kara already distinguishes what he regards as the highest type of renunciation sanctioned by the Veda (vedoktapårivråjya) from the type that requires the carrying of a sacrificial cord, a triple staff, and the like.40 Bhåskara represents this second faction whose hallmark was the triple staff. Bhåskara was a stout defender of the triple-staff tradition. His opinions continue to be combated several centuries later by Advaita writers such as Ånandånubhava. The triple-staff tra38

See Bhåskara’s commentary on the BhG Ch. 3: see Raghavan 1968, pp. 286—287. See Raghavan 1968, 287, 291. 40 See ‡a∫kara on CU 2.23.1 (‡rœ†å∫karagranthåvaliΔ edition), p. 106. 39

The Renouncer’s Staff

247

dition of renunciation was continued during the medieval times by the Vi†iß™ådvaitins. They cite with approval Bhåskara’s arguments against the Advaitins and his ridicule of their alleged hypocracy.41 Vi†iß™ådvaitins also held that ritual activity (karma) was an essential component of the path to liberation and that renouncers cannot abandon all such activity. This dispute affected the respective positions of the Advaitins and Vi†iß™ådvaitins regarding the wearing by renouncers of the sacrificial cord and the topknot (see Olivelle 1986—87, I: pp. 29—35). The same division was at the root of the controversy regarding the staff. The single-staff tradition claimed for the highest type of renouncers a large degree of independence from the normal Brahmanical dharma. It even supported a totally antinomian ethic, at least in the case of those renouncers who had achieved the liberating knowledge of Brahman, and relegated the triple staff to lower types who were incapable of aspiring to higher knowledge. Ånandånubhava states this position clearly: “persons who are capable of acquiring the knowledge of the inner self are entitled to abandon all rites and their subsidiary elements, whereas others are entitled to take the triple staff and the like and to perform rites such as silent prayer” (Nrd 138). The triple-staff tradition, on the contrary, kept renouncers, even the so-called liberated renouncers, squarely within the Brahmanical dharma. Neither tradition, however, considers the single and the triple staff as mere sectarian badges. Each views its own custom alone as legitimate and sanctioned by the dual sources of dharma, the Veda and the sm®tis. As these sources contain passages that support both positions, each tradition attempts to explain away those that support the opponent’s custom. In general the Advaitins have an easier task, because they do not totally reject the triple-staff custom. They relegate it to the lower classes of renouncers, Ku™œcaka and Bahüdaka. Thus they interpret any text that prescribes a triple staff as referring to such renouncers.42 The highest class, Paramaha∫sa, they insist, should carry only a single staff. When Advaitins find it impossible to interpret a text this way, they resort to allegory. When, for example, Atri states that all four classes of renouncers without exception should carry triple staffs (PåM 130), Mådhava interprets this to mean that they should possess the internal qualities represented by the staffs, namely the control of action, speech, and mind (PåM 142—150). The Vi†iß™ådvaita position is less flexible. They totally reject the custom of carrying a single staff, because they do not recognize any distinction among various classes of renouncers with regard to the 41 See Yls I.1—3; Ybh 123. Because of this virulent attack, Ånandånubhava considers Bhåskara’s mind to be clouded with hatred: Nrd 47—50. 42 See PåM 5, 207—209; Nrd 99, 138; Yls II.34; Ybh 131—133.

248

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

emblem. Their hermeneutical strategy is simple: all scriptural allusions to a single staff must be made with reference to times of difficulty (åpad) when a triple staff is unavailable. In such an event a renouncer is allowed to carry a single staff until he is able to procure a triple staff.43 As in the case of the sacrificial cord and the topknot, positions with regard to the staff seem to have hardened with the passage of time. In the BDh (2.18.1), for example, a clear option is given with regard to the type of staff a renouncer may carry. This liberal tradition is echoed by as late a writer as Yådava. He allows an option but considers the triple staff as more praiseworthy (Ln 106—107). Later authors from both traditions dismiss this view and resort to dubious hermeneutical strategies to explain Baudhåyana’s statement.44

43 See Yls II.8—11, 35—42; Ybh 137—146, 169. For the Advaita response see Nrd 137; PåM 138. 44 See Yls II.35—39; Ybh 132—146; Nrd 131—136; PåM 198—209.

14. Pa∞camå†ramavidhi: Rite for Becoming a Naked Ascetic*

14.1. Introduction It is well known that many ascetic sects of ancient India prescribed that their members go naked.1 Jaina and Åjœvaka sects are possibly the two most important and widespread of such sects. Although both the Buddhist and Brahmanical traditions generally proscribe nudity among ascetics,2 it is evident that nudity was not uncommon among Brahmanical renoucers and that it was accepted as legitimate by at least some authorities. Åpastamba, for example, says: “Some declare that he shall go naked” (ÅpDh 2.21.12). The Brahmanical rite of renunciation indicates that this was an old and established practice. As the concluding act of that rite the new renouncer takes off all his clothes and, naked, walks toward the north or the northeast. He is, however, recalled by the teacher, who invites him to wear his clothes and to take the insignia of a renouncer, such as staff, begging-bowl and water-pot.3 In all likelihood the rite of disrobing is a ritual remnant of an earlier custom of total nudity on the part of a renouncer. With the evolution of Bråhmanical renunciation, renouncers were classified into four types: Ku™œcaka, Bahüdaka, Ha∫sa and Pa*

Originally published in Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 24(1980): 129—145. This was noticed even by the Greeks. Strabo speaks of Pra,mnaj.....gumnh,taj, “naked †ramañas” (Geography, 15.1.70). Clement of Alexandria says: “those Indians who are called ?semnoi, (†ramañas) go naked all their lives” (Stromata, III.60). 2 “If, monks, a former member of another sect comes naked, a robe belonging to a preceptor should be looked about for.” Mahåvagga, I.38.11. In the Brahmanical tradition, both Gautama and Baudhåyana forbid nakedness: “He shall wear a garment to cover his private parts” —kaupœnåcchådanårtha∫ våso bibh®yåt (GDh 3.18; BDh 2.11.19). Vasiß™ha (VaDh 10.9—10) implies the same. 3 See Ydhs p.17; YPra 18.2—5; NpvU 169. 1

250

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

ramaha∫sa. It is assumed that as one moves up this hierarchy one becomes progressively more free from rules and abandons practices obligatory at the lower levels.4 Thus the gradual abandonment of a renouncer’s insignia becomes the hallmark of the higher types of renouncers, especially of Paramaha∫sas. They cut the top-knot (†ikhå) and discard the sacrificial cord (yaj∞opavœta). They may even abandon the begging-bowl and use the hand instead (påñipåtrin) or eat from the ground like a cow (udarapåtrin). Finally, they may even discard the staff, the water-pot and the loin-cloth and go about completely naked, without any insignia of their state (avyaktaliõgåΔ: JåbU 6) —except perhaps their very nakedness.5 The locus classicus of this view is the Paramaha∫sa Upanißad (PhU 47): “A Paramaha∫sa lives without a staff, without a top-knot, without a sacrificial cord, without a garment” —nadañ∂a∫ na†ikha∫ nayaj∞opavœta∫ nåcchådana∫ carati paramaha∫saΔ. It is reasonable to presume that some ritual or ceremony must have accompanied the discarding of these important insignia. Unfortunately the sources are almost totally silent on this point. The Jåbåla Upanißad (JåbU 70) contains a rare reference to such a rite. It says: “Triple staff, the water pot, sling, bowl, water strainer, topknot, sacrificial string: abndoning all these in water with the words: ‘bhüΔ svåhå,’ let him seek after the Self” —tridañ∂a∫ kamañ∂alu∫ †ikya∫ påtra∫ jalapavitra∫ †ikhå∫ yaj∞opavœta∫ cety etat sarva∫ bhüΔ svåhety apsu parityajyåtmånam anvicchet. A similar statement is made in the Turœyåtœtåvadhüta Upanißad (see note 5). The rite alluded to in these documents is very simple and rudimentary. The items to be renounced are simply thrown in water. In all probability a more complex rite evolved over time, but until now we have had no evidence of one. It was then a pleasant surprise for me to discover during my research in India in the Spring of 1978 a detailed procedure for discarding these important insignia of a renouncer. I found it buried within a manuscript of Rudradeva’s Sa∫nyåsapaddhati (ed. in Olivelle 4 Renunciation is traditionally viewed as a negative state (niv®ttidharma). It is constituted by the abandonment of practices associated with life-in-the-world. Just as renunciation qua tale, a given stage of renunciation, e.g., Paramaha∫sa, is defined negatively as the abandonment of one or several practices associated with the preceding stage. See Chapter 4. above. 5 See ÅrU 11—12; K†rU 32; MaiU 124; ņrama Upanißad, 102. The TurU 242 is explicit: dañ∂akamañ∂aluka™isütrakaupœnåcchådana∫ svavidhyuktakriyådika∫ sarvam apsu sa∫nyasya —“Having renounced everything— staff, water pot, girdle, loin-cloth, robe, and the rites etc. prescribed in one’s rules —in water.” On the question of abandoning the topknot and the sacrificial thread there was a bitter controversy between the Advaita tradition, which advocated their abandonment, and the Vaißñava tradition, which opposed it. The ‡å™yåyanœ Upanißad (321—333), a Vaißñava document, pronounces against their abandonment and a polemical pamphlet based on that Upanißad and containing a bitter attack on the Advaita position was written by Varadåcårya in the 12—13th cent. CE. It is entitled Yatiliõgasamarthanam (ed. and tr. in Olivelle 1986—87). Varada’s argument against the abandonment of these items is closely followed by Vedånta De†ika in the 64th chapter of his ‡atadüßañœ, entitled Yatiliõgabhedabhaõgavåda (ed. and tr. in Olivelle 1986—87). Thus, the rite described in P comes exclusively from the Advaita tradition.

Pa∞camå†ramavidhi

251

1986). It is entitled Dañ∂atyågavidhi. Further investigation showed that it is substantially the same as a work entitled Pa∞camå†ramavidhi, a manuscript of which was described by M. Shåstrœ in his Notices of Sanskrit Manuscripts (Calcutta, 1892), Vol. X, No. 4238. That Ms. is now found in the Library of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta. No other manuscript of this work (henceforth P) is known to exist. 14.2. Description of the Manuscripts The present edition of P is made on the basis of the following two manuscripts: 1. It is written at the end of a Ms. of Rudradeva’s Sa∫nyåsapaddhati found in the Deccan College, Poona. Gorhe Collection, 63. Paper. Devanågårœ script. 43 folia. 10.95 x 5.7 inches. 13 lines on a page, approximately 30 letters (akßara) on a line. The Ms. is dated sa∫vat 1910 and †aka 1775 (= 1853—54 CE). It has the following colophon: †rœmann®pavikramårkasamayåtœtasa∫vat 1910 tathå ca †rœmann®pa†ålivåhana†ake 1775 pramådinåmasa∫vatsare dakßiñåyane hemantartau mahåmåõgalyapradamåsottame mårga†œrßamåsa†uklapratipadi pråtar ida∫ pustakam årabhya †rœgodådakßiñatœrasthakßetrapuñyastambhasthitagorhopanåmakabrahmagirisünunå lakßmañå vå nåmnå gålavarßyå†ramanika™asindhyåkhyaråjasenånive†e pürvalikhitam åsårya †uklacaturda†yå∫ süryåståt gatagha™œßu navasu svahastenaiva likhitvå samåpti∫ pråpita∫ svårthatvåt parårthatvåc ca ÙÙ †ubha∫ bhavatu ÙÙ kalyåñadam astübhayor lekhakapå™hakayoΔ ÙÙ †rœΔ (repeated 7 times).

It seems that the scribe of the Ms., Lakßmaña Gorhe, is the same person who in 1855 CE transcribed Våsudevå†rama’s Yatidharmaprakå†a.6 P is written in the Ms. after the chapter on the funeral of a renouncer (yatisa∫skåre upayoginirñayaΔ), which concludes Rudradeva’s Sa∫nyåsasapaddhati, but before the colophon. It is written by the same hand as the rest of the Ms. Siglum: D. 2. Library of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta. Ms. no. 2090. See Shåstrœ, Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts (Calcutta, 1925), Vol. 3, pp. 1025—26 (No. 3054). Country-made paper. Devnågarœ script. 2 folia (written on 3 sides). 10 x 4.5 inches. 10 lines on a page, approximately 31 letters (akßara) on a line. The Ms. is undated. It has the following colophon: †rœnåråyañårpañam astu ÙÙ †rœlakßmœn®si∫ho vijayatetaråm [sic] ÙÙ †rœ ÙÙ rå ÙÙ ma ÙÙ ca∫ ÙÙ dra ÙÙ pra ÙÙ sa∫ ÙÙ n ÙÙ cha ÙÙ cha ÙÙ

Siglum: C. 6

This is Ms. D used in my edition of the YPra (see Olivelle 1976—77, I, pp.19—20)

252

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

14.3. Identity of the Text and its Author In the epilogue D calls the work dañ∂atyågavidhi (“procedure for abandoning the staff”): see note to 85. C, on the other hand, calls it pa∞camå†ramavidhi in both the prologue (2) and the epilogue (85). It is difficult to determine which of these was the original title, or whether it had a title at all, for D presents the text as a portion of a larger work, while C assumes it to be an independent document. I have adopted the latter title, because it is less of a descriptive phrase than the former and because it is given as the title at both the beginning and the end of C. C ascribes P to ‡a∫karåcårya (see 85). It is, however, very improbable that it was composed by the great Advaita teacher. If his authorship of P was generally recognized, it is unlikely that the scribe of D would have failed to mention it. In fact, Lakßmaña Gorhe, the scribe of D, seems to have believed that P was written by Rudradeva and that it was a portion of his Sa∫nyåsapaddhati. This is indicated by the table of contents (anukramañikå) that Gorhe has given at the beginning of D. The last entry in it reads: dañ∂avisarjanaprakåraΔ ßo∂a†amahåvåkyådiΔ iti dañ∂avisarjanådi samåptam. Immediately after that he writes: iti sa∫nyåsapaddhatyanukramañikå samåptå. Thus, according to Gorhe, P forms a part of the Sa∫nyåsapaddhati. If he is right, then P was composed by Rudradeva, who wrote the Pratåpanårasi∫ha, of which the Sa∫nyåsapaddhati is a section, in 1710—11 CE.7 However, of the twenty-five or so Mss. of the Sa∫nyåsapaddhati that I have collated in preparing a critical edition of that text (Olivelle 1986), none makes any mention of P. One must, however, bear in mind that the Sa∫nyåsapaddhati is but a small portion of Rudradeva’s voluminous legal treatise Pratåpanårasi∫ha, sections of which are scattered in numerous manuscript libraries of Maharashtra and Gujarat. I have not been able to locate a single complete Ms. of the Pratåpanårasi∫ha. It is, therefore, possible that the present work may be found elsewhere in the Pratåpanårasi∫ha and that the manuscript tradition followed by Gorhe has reproduced it with the Sa∫nyåsapaddhati because they deal with the same topic. I must, however, confess that this is quite unlikely and that P probably was never a part of the Pratåpanårasi∫ha. Whoever composed P, we are told, followed the description of the rite given in a work called vi†ve†varœpaddhati (cf. 3 variant in D) or vi†ve†varœ (85). I have not been able to identify this work. Such a 7 At the end of the Sa∫skåraprakå†a of his Pratåpanårasi∫ha, Toro Nåråyaña gives the date and place of its composition: †åke d®gagnißa™candre vik®tau uttaråyane Ù pauße k®ßnada†amyåyå∫ pratiß™hånapure †ubhe ÙÙ (Ms. of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, Ser. No. 902, Acc. No. 1485 [Dharma†åstra], folio 144; Bombay Univ. Mss. Catalogue, Book 3 [Vol. I-II], Ms. No. 1088, folio 223). Toro, thus, completed this section of his work, which section includes the Sa∫nyåsapaddhati in †aka 1632 (= 1710—11 CE) at Paithan in Maharashtra.

Pa∞camå†ramavidhi

253

description is not found either inVi†ve†vara Sarasvatœ’s Yatidharmasa∫graha, often referred to as Vi†ve†varapaddhati,8 or in Acyutå†rama’s Sa∫nyåsapaddhati, also called Vi†ve†varœyapaddhati.9 The authorship of P cannot be determined without identifying this work. With the scanty evidence we possess it is impossible to determine the antiquity of the rite described in P. The rite has been transmitted in the Advaita tradition; C, in fact, ascribes P to ‡a∫kara. As we have noted above, it is the Advaita tradition that permits the abandonment of the renouncer’s insignia at the highest level of renunciation. Furthermore, toward the conclusion homage is paid to ‡a∫kara (75) and to several other Advaita teachers (76, 77, 81-83). If we accept that the section 38—84, which is omitted in C, is an integral part of P, then the mention of Vivarañåcårya (83), i.e., Prakå†åtman,10 indicates that it was composed after the 11th century CE. The rite described therein, however, may antedate the composition of P. 14.4. Description of the Rite The rite of abandoning the insignia is performed on an auspicious day, e.g., during the last month before the summer solstice (4). It is performed probably in the morning, because reference is made only to the completion of the morning duties (pråtaråhnika) prior to the rite (4). The renouncer should first obtain the permission of his guru. This suggests that the guru would decide whether the candidate has reached the spiritual maturity necessary to undertake such a drastic form of renunciation.11 Renouncers are not allowed to produce or to use fire. The rite, however, just as any Hindu ritual, requires a fire.12 The candidate, therefore, has to obtain the services of a Brahmin to light a fire (4). No See YPra, I, App. III under Vi†ve†varapaddhatiΔ. See Kane 1962—75, I: 1107, 1160. I have consulted the Ms. (Acc. No. 12548) of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, which is entitled Vi†ve†varœyapaddhati and compared it with Acyutå†rama’s Sa∫nyåsapaddhati found in the same Institute (Acc. No. 1940). The two differ on certain points, but are basically the same work. Other medieval works may have been called Vi†ve†varœ either because of the author’s name or because of his devotion to Vi†ve†vara: see Kane 1962—75, I: 1106—07. 10 There is no consensus among scholars as to the date of Prakå†åtman: Karl Potter (Bibliography of Indian Philosophies, Delhi, 1970, p. 147), 975 CE; S. Dasgupta (A History of Indian Philosophy, Cambridge, 1922, II, p.103), 1200 CE; S. Radhakrishnan (Indian Philosophy, London, 1929, II, p. 451), 1200 CE. 11 According to Mådhava-Vidyårañya, only an enlightened Paramaha∫sa (vidvatparamaha∫sa) is allowed to abandon the staff, whereas a seeker after knowledge (vividißuparamaha∫sa) is required to carry one: see PåM, II, 2, p.175. A similar view is expressed in the TurU 242, the NpvU 193—194, and the Sütasa∫hitå, 3.5.14—45. 12 Both the JåbU (70) cited above and the TurU (see note 5) state that the items are thrown in water. It is probable that the fire was introduced into the rite at a later date. When a staff is damaged it is also thrown in water, saying: “Go to the sea, svåhå” —samudra∫ gaccha svåheti vinaß™a∫ prakßipej jale (Medhåtithi, cited in the Yls p. 3). The YPra cites the Våyu Puråña: bhagnadañ∂ådika∫ caiva jale ’gådhe kßiped yatiΔ (YPra 68.78). 8

9

254

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

ritual formula is recited when the fire is lit, possibly because no formula besides the syllable o∫ is permitted in the case of a Paramaha∫sa.13 The first item to be thrown in the fire is the Brahma-mudrå, which is a special way of tying a string around the staff to represent Brahmå. When a triple staff is carried, it is necessary to tie the three staffs together at different levels.14 Probably under the influence of Tantrism, these knots came to be conceived of as mudrås symbolizing various divinities or divine objects. The practice of tying mudrås was continued even by those renouncers, e.g., Paramaha∫sas, who carried only a single staff. Five such mudrås are mentioned: någamudrå, dhenumudrå, para†umudrå, †aõkhamudrå and brahmamudrå, representing serpent, cow, axe, conch and Brahmå, respectively.15 The present account mentions only brahmamudrå and para†umudrå. Possibly in the tradition from which the present account is drawn only these two were in vogue.16 Next, the candidate unties the axe-mudrå and offers it in the fire. This mudrå symbolizes the axe carried by Para†u-Råma. It is normally tied almost at the top of the staff, just below the conch-mudrå. After throwing the mudrås in the fire, the candidate begins the process of abandoning the staff. A Paramaha∫sa carries a single bamboo staff, while renouncers of lower orders carry a triple staff. The rite refers only to a single staff. The candidate first cuts his bamboo staff at each joint. The number of joints permitted range from a minimum of two to a maximum of eleven.17 Each piece of the staff is then thrown in the fire separately, reciting the ritual formulae given at 13— 18. The first verse of these formulas is reminiscent of the verse which the candidate recited when he took hold of the staff for the very first time at his initiation into renunciation: As the discus in Vißñu’s hand, As in ‡iva’s hand the trident, As the bolt in Indra’s hand, So, O Staff, be in mine today.18 See YPra 38.14; 40.11; Sütasa∫hitå, 2.6.27—28. Våsudeva, who does not attach great importance to the mudrås, says: “. . . the three staffs . . . are tied with a string of cow’s hair to a width of three inches only in order to make it easier for one to carry them” (YPra 35.29). See also YPra 68.88—93. 15 For an account of these mudrås, see YPra 35.7—29. 16 It is evident from YPra 35.18—29, that various sections within the Advaita tradition disagreed as to both the number of mudrås one should have on the staff and their relative importance. 17 A text ascribed to Baudhåyana in the PåM (I, 2, pp. 157—159) states that the bamboo staff may have eleven, nine, seven, four, three or two joints. See also the Nirñayasindhu (ed. Gopala Shastri Nene; Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 14; Benares, 1919—1930), p. 2139; Dharmasindhu (Kashi Sanskrit Series, 183; Benares, 1968), p. 982. The Sa∫nyåså†ramapaddhati (see below note 22), however, speaks only of six-, eight-, ten-, twelve-, and fourteenjointed staffs: ßa∂bhiΔ sudar†ana∫ prokta∫ nåråyañam athåß™akam Ù gopåla∫ da†abhiΔ prokta∫ dvåda†air våsudevakam Ù caturda†am ananta∫ ca parvåñy etåni nånyathå ÙÙ (folio 33b). 18 yathå vißñukare cakra∫ †üla∫ †ivakare yathå Ù indrahaste yathå vajra∫ tathå bhavådya me ÙÙ Ydhs, p. 17; YPra 21.125—126. 13

14

Pa∞camå†ramavidhi

255

The final verse (17—18) points to the allegorization that the insignia of a renouncer, in this case the staff, were subjected to.19 Already in Manu (12.10) we find a similar allegory of the triple staff: That man is called a triple-staffed in whose mind these three are firmly fixed: the control over his speech (vågdañ∂a), the contol over his thoughts (manodañ∂a), and the control over his body (kåyadañ∂a).20

In the present instance the allegory has become the reality —the renouncer discards the bamboo staff, for he possesses the superior staff of wisdom, on which alone he will henceforth lean.21 The next item to be discarded is the water-pot. It is broken and thrown not in the fire but into a large river (mahånadœ), possibly one that flows into the sea. The theme of the ritual formula is similar to that recited at the abandonment of the staff. The instrument of external purification, namely the water-pot, is unnecessary, because the renouncer has attained the internal purity caused by the knowledge of the Ultimate. A sentiment running through these formulas is melancholy, a feeling of sadness like that felt at the parting of an old friend. One knows that one must part, but the shared memories of a lifetime and the knowledge that this parting is final make that moment sad. Notice the repeated reference to the long time that the candidate has been associated with these items: “O Brahma-mudrå . . . who for so long has remained on my staff” (5—7), “(O Staff) . . . in my hand have you remained throughout this time” (15), “O Water-pot, you . . . did purify me in the past” (21—22). There is an interesting account of the formulae recited each time a renouncer takes his staff in a work entitled Sa∫nyåså†ramapaddhati.22 The opening verse shows the intimate relationship existing between a renouncer and his staff:23 måt®pit®samo dañ∂o bhråtaro guravas tathå —“The staff is like a father and a mother, like brothers and teachers.” 19 In general, an internal quality either replaces or is symbolized by an external insigne. For example, it is said in the case of a renouncer the top-knot consists of knowledge and the sacrificial thread consists of meditation on the Self. See K†rU 34; JåbU 67-68; BraU 85—87; NpvU 151—153. 20 vågdañ∂o ’tha manodañ∂ah kåyadañ∂as tathaiva ca Ù yasyaite nihitå buddhau tridañ∂œti sa ucyate ÙÙ MDh 12.10. 21 The PhU (50) makes a similar statement regarding the single-staffed renouncer: j∞ånadañ∂o dh®to yena ekadañ∂œ sa ucyate Ù kåß™hadañ∂o dh®to yena sarv农 j∞ånavarjitaΔ Ù sa yåti narakån ghorån mahårauravam eva ca ÙÙ For a discussion of this passage see Vidyårañya’s JMV, pp. 111—112 and PåM II, 2, pp. 177—178. 22 A manuscript of this work is found in the collection of the Pråj∞a På™ha†ålå, Wai. Serial No. 4992. Paper. Devanågarœ script. 21 cms x 10.2 cms. 52 folia. 10 lines on a page and 27 letters on a line. Not dated. This account is found in folio 33b. 23 A renouncer is expected to carry the staff whenever he walks outside his residence. A verse ascribed to Jamadagni, but also found in the Sa∫U (252), states: dañ∂åtmanos tu sa∫yogaΔ sarvadaiva vidhœyate Ù na dañ∂ena vinå gacched ißukßepatraya∫ budhaΔ ÙÙ “It is enjoined that one should always carry a staff; without a staff a wise man should not travel the distance of three bow-shots.” See Ydhs, p. 18; YPra 35.31—32; JMV, p. 106.

256

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

The last items to be discarded are the clothes, girdle and loincloth.24 The renouncer now returns to his condition at birth (26—28). He is naked both externally (without clothes) and internally (without possessions and desires). Henceforth he is expected to live alone (37) totally dedicated to the contemplation of the Self. His behavior is so totally different from the “normal” required of a man in society, it so contradicts the norms of social conduct, that he is considered by the world as a fool, a lunatic or a demon (37).25 The essential part of the rite has now ended. In conclusion the naked renouncer recites the sixteen Great Sayings and recalls their import. Then he pays homage to Brahmå, Vißñu, and ‡iva and to twenty-two former saints and teachers who traversed the path that he has just undertaken. 14.5. On the Pa∞camå†rama The title of our text according to C is pa∞camå†ramavidhi —“the procedure for entering the fifth order of life (å†rama).” Brahmanism, however, generally recognizes only four å†ramas, those of the student, the householder, the hermit, and the renouncer. The validity of a fifth å†rama has been the subject of controversy in Brahmanical thought. As early as Baudhåyana26 we observe a trend to subdivide the lifestyles encompassed by the four å†ramas. The classical formulation of these subdivisions is found in the Vaikhånasa-dharma-sütra, 1.3—9, which passage is substantially the same as the ņrama Upanißad (95—103). In it each of the four å†ramas is said to encompass four types of lifestyle.27 Those belonging to the fourth å†rama, namely renunciation, are classified into Ku™œcaka, Bahüdaka, Ha∫sa, and Paramaha∫sa. None of these subdivisions, however, was considered an independent å†rama. There was, nevertheless, a tendency from a very early date to consider some types of renouncers, especially Paramaha∫sas who had achieved the liberating knowledge (vidvatparamaha∫sa or jœvanmukta), as being in a state beyond the å†ramas. They were hence called atyå†ramins. The earliest occurence of this term is in the ‡vetå†vatara Upanißad (6.21) where ‡vetå†vatara is said to have declared Brahman to “those beyond å†rama” (atyå†ramibhyaΔ). The meaning of the term in that context, however, is not altogether certain. The Nåradapari24 Not all Advaita authorities agree that even the loin-cloth has to be discarded. Våsudeva inerprets the above mentioned passage of the PhU (46—47) to show that, while clothes are discarded, the renouncer continues to wear a loin-cloth: “It is understood, however, that while the staff, the patched garment and the like are abandoned, the loincloth is not, because it is specifically mentioned in the first sentence while deliberately left out of the last, and because it is not excessively distractive” (YPra 4.112). 25 anunmatta unmattaveßaΔ —“Let him, though not mad, appear like one out of his mind” VaDh 10.19. amü∂ho mü∂harüpeña cared dharmam adüßayan Ù yathainam avamanyeran pare satatam eva hi ÙÙ MBh 14.46.50. See also ņrama Up. 102; JåbU 69. 26 See BDh 3.2.1—19; 3.3.1—14. 27 A similar division is found in the MBh 12.235—236. The Kürma Puråña (1.2.74—81) divides each å†rama into two.

Pa∞camå†ramavidhi

257

vråjaka Upanißad, on the other hand, clearly defines an ativarñå†ramin (“one beyond varña and å†rama”) as a renouncer who has perceived the illusory nature of all phenomenal reality and has awakened to the absolute Truth.28 The Turœyåtœtåvadhüta Upanißad (242—44) is even more explicit. According to it, an avadhüta renouncer is “beyond the fourth” (turœyåtœta), that is, beyond the state of a Paramaha∫sa, the fourth class of renouncer. When a Paramaha∫sa comes to realize the liberating Truth, he gives up all the symbols of the fourth å†rama, i.e., staff, water-pot, girdle, and loin-cloth, and the conduct appropriate to the varñas and å†ramas (tyaktavarñå†ramåcåraΔ). The ativarñå†ramin is described also in the Sütasa∫hitå (3.5.14—45) of the Skanda Puråña, where he is identified with the guru.29 In none of these sources, however, is this highest state of renunciation referred to as the fifth å†rama. Nevertheless, once a lifestyle had been recognized as transcending the four å†ramas, it would have been an easy passage to considering it as the fifth å†rama —the å†rama beyond the å†ramas. I have not been able to find this view expressed in ancient documents, but the existence of such a view is demonstrated by its strong condemnation in the Kürma Puråña (1.2.72—85). While recognizing that a yogin is beyond the å†ramas (see 1.2.71, 83), the Kürma (1.2.72—73) denies that he constitutes a separate å†rama: catvåro hy å†ramåΔ proktå yoginåm eka ucyate ÙÙ sarvakarmåñi sa∫nyasya samådhim acala∫ †ritaΔ Ù ya åste ni†calo yogœ sa sa∫nyåsœ na pa∞camaΔ ÙÙ The å†ramas are declared to be four in number. It is suggested that there is one other, namely that of Yogins. The Yogin who, having renounced all rites and attained unwavering concentration, sits still is a renouncer; he does not constitute a fifth å†rama.

At the end of the discussion the author returns to this theme and again denies the validity of a fifth å†rama : tasmåd etad vijånœdhvam å†ramåñå∫ catuß™ayam Ù sarveßu veda†åstreßu pa∞camo nopapadyate ÙÙ Therefore, know ye that there are only four å†ramas. In all the Vedic texts a fifth is not mentioned. (Kürma 1.2.85) 28 yaΔ †arœrendriyådibhyo vihœna∫ sarvasåkßiñam Ù påramårthikavij∞åna∫ sukhåtmåna∫ svaya∫prabham Ù paratattva∫ vijånåti so ’tivarñå†ramœ bhavet ÙÙ varñå†ramådayo dehe måyayå parikalpitåΔ Ù nåtmano bodharüpasya mama te santi sarvadå Ù iti yo veda vedåntaiΔ so ’tivarñå†ramœ bhavet ÙÙ yasya varñå†ramåcåro galitaΔ svåtmadar†anåt Ù sa varñån å†ramån sarvån atœtya svåtmani sthitaΔ ÙÙ yo ’tœtya tv å†ramån varñån åtmany eva sthitaΔ pumån Ù so ’tivarñå†ramœ proktaΔ sarvavedårthavedibhiΔ ÙÙ tasmåd anyagatå varñå å†ramå api nårada Ù åtmany åropitåΔ sarve bhråntyå te nåtmavedinå ÙÙ na vidhir na nißedha† ca na varjyåvarjyakalpanå Ù brahmavij∞åninåm asti tathå nånyac ca nårada ÙÙ NpvU 193—194. These verses are reproduced in the Sütasa∫hitå 3.5.16—17, 19—20, 31—32, 36—37. It should be noted that the term ativarñå†ramin replaces the older atyå†ramin. 29 This section of the Sütasa∫hitå is reproduced by Vidyårañya in his discussion of the ativarñå†ramin: see JMV pp. 22—24.

258

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

If not the author of P, at least the author of P’s title supported the view, so vigorously condemned by the Kürma Puråña, that this final and highest state of renunciation constitutes the fifth å†rama. Whether it is considered as the fifth å†rama or simply as beyond all å†ramas, a life-style of total freedom —freedom from rules and customs, from duties and insignia— was recognized by a broad spectrum of Brahmanical thinkers. P gives us precious information on the rite by which one adopts that lifestyle. 14.6. Text (1) †rœ gañe†åya namaΔ Ù (2) atha pa∞camå†ramavidhi∫ vyåkhyåsyåmaΔ Ù (3) tatra dañ∂ådivisarjanakramam åha Ù (4) udagayanottamamåsådi†ubhadine pråtaråhnikådi sa∫pådya guror vandanapürvaka∫ tadåj∞ayå bråhmañadvårå tüßñœm agni∫ prajvålyåbhyarcya brahmamudrå∫ †ithilœk®tya juhuyåt Ù (5) brahmamudre namas tubhya∫ gaccha tva∫ påvake ’dhunå Ù (6) etåvatkålaparyanta∫ mama dañ∂e vyavasthitå ÙÙ (7) påvakaΔ sarvadevånå∫ nivåsasthånam ucyate ÙÙ (8) iti sa∫prårthya Ù (9) tataΔ para†umudrå∫ sadorakå∫ juhuyåt Ù (10) vißñumudre namas tubhya∫ bh®guråmakare sthitå Ù (11) sadå me pålanårthåya gaccha tva∫ påvake ’dhunå ÙÙ (12) tato dañ∂a∫ pratiparvañi chitvå juhuyåt Ù (13) yathå vißñukare cakra∫ yathå †ülaΔ kapardinaΔ Ù (14) yathå dañ∂o brahmahaste vajram indrakare yathå ÙÙ (15) etåvatkålaparyanta∫ mama haste vyavasthitaΔ Ù (16) påvaka∫ prati gacchådya kåß™hadañ∂a namo ’stu te ÙÙ (17) j∞ånadañ∂o manodañ∂o dañ∂o våkkåyayor api Ù (18) mama santi tvayå kårya∫ nåsti nåsti dhruva∫ bruve ÙÙ (19) pratiparvañi mantråv®ttiΔ Ù (20) tataΔ kamañ∂alu∫ hrade åpürya spho™ayitvå mahånadyå∫ kßipet Ù (21) kamañ∂alo mahåtœrtha påvito ’smi tvayå purå Ù (22) itaΔ para∫ j∞ånatœrthe nimagno ’ham ala∫ tvayå ÙÙ (23) antaΔ†auca∫ mamotpanna∫ bahiΔ†aucena ki∫ bhavet Ù (24) antaΔ†aucavihœnasya bahiΔ†auca∫ v®thå v®thå ÙÙ (25) tataΔ kaupœna∫ ka™isütra∫ vastrådika∫ ca sœmånte vis®jet Ù (26) digambaro ’smi nagno ’smi nirlajjo ’ham aharni†am Ù (27) janmakåle yathå nagnas tathedånœ∫ mayå k®tam ÙÙ (28) yathå digambaraΔ †a∫bhuΔ †rœ†uko våmadevakaΔ Ù (29) eva∫ sarva∫ parityajya niΔsaõgo nirmalo yatiΔ ÙÙ (30) kåmakrodhådirahito vißayeßu paråõmukhaΔ Ù (31) sarvadå dhyåna†œlo ’ya∫ nididhyåsanatatparaΔ ÙÙ (32) adhyåtmanityavedåntasåkßåtkårå∫† ca bhåvitaΔ Ù (33) amånitvådiguñakaΔ sarvabhütadayåparaΔ ÙÙ

Pa∞camå†ramavidhi

(34) yatki∫citsnånasa∫dhyådijapadhyånåditatparaΔ Ù (35) kßutpipåsåniv®ttyartham annodakaparåyañaΔ ÙÙ (36) paradåraparadravyadhåtuspar†avivarjitaΔ Ù (37) ekåkœ sa∫cared bhümau bålonmattapi†åcavat ÙÙ (38) anantara∫ ßo∂a†amahåvåkyårthasmarañam Ù (39) sa etam eva purußa∫ brahma tatamam apa†yad iti bahv®cåm ®gvedavåkyam (AU 1.3.13)Ù (40) aha∫ brahmåsmœti yajurvedavåkyam (BU 1.4.10) Ù (41) tat tvam asœti såmavedavåkyam (CU 6.8.7) Ù (42) tam evaika∫ vijånatha åtmånam anyå våco vimu∞catety atharvañavåkyam (MuñU 2.2.5) Ù (43) anena krameña sarvåñi våkyåni j∞åtavyåni Ù (44) tad yo ’ha∫ so ’sau yo ’sau so ’ham (AÅ 2.2.4.6) Ù (45) sa ya† cåya∫ puruße ya† cåsåv åditye sa ekaΔ (TU 2.8.1) Ù (46) tat tvam asi (CU 6.8.7) Ù (47) pråño ’smi praj∞åtmå (KßU 3.2) Ù (48) praj∞åna∫ brahma (AU 3.3) Ù (49) aha∫ brahmåsmi (BU 1.4.10) Ù (50) tat tvam asi (CU 6.8.7) Ù (51) ayam åtmå brahma (MåñU 2)Ù (52) sa etam eva purußa∫ brahma tatamam apa†yat (AU 1.3.13) Ù (53) eßa ta åtmåntaryåmy am®taΔ (BU 3.7.3) Ù (54) kha∫ brahma tatamam apa†yat Ù (55) eßa ta åtmå brahma Ù (56) iti ßo∂a†amahåvåkyåni Ù (57) brahmåham asmi Ù sa eva∫vit asmål lokåt pretya (TU 2.8.1) Ù (58) iti caturñå∫ vedånå∫ parorajase såvad o∫ Ù (59) o∫ brahmañe namaΔ Ù (60) vißñave namaΔ Ù (61) mahe†åya namaΔ Ù (62) vasiß™håya namaΔ Ù (63) parå†aråya namaΔ Ù (64) vedavyåsåya namaΔ Ù (65) vai†ampåyanåya namaΔ Ù (66) sa∫vartakåya namaΔ Ù (67) †vetaketave namaΔ Ù (68) durvåsase namaΔ Ù (69) ja∂abharatåya namaΔ Ù (70) raivatåya namaΔ Ù (71) våmadevåya namaΔ Ù (72) sumantave namaΔ Ù (73) jaiminaye namaΔ Ù (74) pailåya namaΔ Ù (75) †a∫karåcåryebhyo namaΔ Ù (76) haståmalakåcåryebhyo namaΔ Ù (77) tro™akåcåryebhyo namaΔ Ù (78) dattåtreyåcåryebhyo namaΔ Ù (79) †ukåcåryebhyo namaΔ Ù (80) nåradåya namaΔ Ù (81) dravi∂åcåryebhyo namaΔ Ù (82) gau∂apådåcåryebhyo namaΔ Ù (83) vivarañåcåryebhyo namaΔ Ù (84) samastavidyåpravartakåcåryebhyo namaΔ ÙÙ (85) iti †a∫karåcåryaviracito vi†ve†varœsthapa∞camå†ramavidhiΔ ÙÙ

14.6.1 Critical Apparatus 1. †rœ . . . namaΔ: D om. 2—3. pa∞camå-...tatra: D vi†ve†varœpaddhatyanusårœ 4. -måsådi†ubhadine: D måsadine; agni∫: D agnœn 5. Before bhramamudre C adds mantraΔ 9. sadorakå∫: D doraka∫; juhuyåt: D juhoti 12. tato: C atha; -parvañi: C parvåñi; juhuyåt: D juhoti 13. †ülaΔ: C †üla∫ 14. dañ∂o: C dañ∂a∫ 16. gacchådya: D gacchå†u 17. dañ∂o våk- : C D dañ∂avåk 18. santi: C svasti∫; bruve: D dhruvam 19. prati-...-v®ttiΔ: C om. 21. kamañ∂alo: C kamañ∂alu (-lu in margin first hand) 22. ’ham ala∫: D hy amale 25. ca: D om; vis®jet: D visarjayet 27. nagnas...k®tam: D nagno vastra∫ nåsti tathå mama 28. -devakaΔ: C devataΔ 29. eva∫: D iti 31. ’ya∫: C ’ha∫; -dhyåsanatatparaΔ: C dhyåsanititparaΔ 32. -nitya-: D dhyåna; såkßåtkårå∫† ca bhåvitaΔ: D såkßatkårånubhåvitaΔ 33. -ådiguñakaΔ: C ådyagañakaΔ

259

260

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

36. -dåra-: C dårå 37. ekåkœ: C ekåkœ∫ 38. C omits this entire section. 39, 52, 54. tatamam: D tatam 85. -viracito: C viracita∫; iti...vidhiΔ: D iti vi†ve†varœsthaΔ sa∫dañ∂atyågavidhiΔ samåptaΔ

14.6.2 Translation 1. Homage to Blessed Gañe†a! 2. Now, we shall describe the procedure for entering the fifth order of life. 3. Thereof he has given the manner in which the staff etc. are discarded. 4. On an auspicious day, e.g., during the last month of the sun’s northward passage, having performed the morning duties and the like, (the candidate) should worship his guru and, with his permission, get a Brahmin to silently kindle a fire. He should then worship that fire, untie the Brahma-mudrå, and offer it in the fire, 8. entreating: 5—7. “O Brahma-mudrå, homage to you, who for so long have remained on my staff. Go now to the fire; they call it the resting place of all the gods.” 9. Next, he should offer the Para†u-mudrå along with the string in the fire, saying: 10—11. “O mudrå of Vißñu, homage to you, who have always remained in the hand of Para†u-Råma to protect me. Go now to the fire.” 12. Thereupon, he should cut the staff at each joint and offer (the pieces) in the fire saying: 13—15. “As the discus in Vißñu’s hand and in ‡iva’s the trident, as the staff in Brahmå’s hand and in Indra’s the bolt, so in my hand you have remained throughout this time. 16. Homage to you, O wooden Staff! Go to the fire today. 17-18. I possess the staff of knowledge, as also the staffs that control the mind, speech and body. I have no need of you at all, yea I say, I have no need. 19. These ritual formulas are to be recited while offering each section of the staff. 20. Next, having filled the water-pot at a lake, he should break it and throw it into a large river, saying: 21—22. “O water-pot, you, who are the great tœrtha,30 did purify me in the past. Away with you! Henceforth I shall remain plunged in the tœrtha of knowledge. 23—24. I have obtained inner purity. What use have I then of external purification? Vain, O vain indeed, is external purification for one who lacks inner purity.” 25. Finally, he should throw away his loin-cloth and girdle, as well as his clothes etc., at the village boundary, saying: 30 tœrtha: literally, a sacred bathing place. Here the water pot is addressed as tœrtha because it performs the same sacred function of purification.

Pa∞camå†ramavidhi

261

26—28. “Clotheless am I, naked! Without shame am I, day and night! Naked as at birth have I now become, clotheless as were ‡iva, ‡uka and Våmadeva.”31 29—30. Having thus abandoned everything, let the renouncer be unattached and spotless, without love, hatred, and the like. Let him turn away from sensual objects. 31—32. Devoting himself constantly to meditation and contemplation, let him ever engage in directly perceiving the import of the regular Vedåntas dealing with the Supreme Self. 33. Let him cultivate virtues, such as humility, and show compassion to all creatures. 34—35. Intent on any type32 of bathing, twilight worship, etc., and on silent recitation, meditation and the like, let him concern himself about food and water only to assuage his hunger and thirst. 36. Let him avoid wives and property of others as well as touching precious metals.33 37. Thus let him wander alone on earth, as if he were a fool, a lunatic, or a goblin. 38. Immediately thereafter he should recall the meaning of the sixteen Great Sayings:34 A) 39. The ¥g-vedic saying of the Bahv®cas: “He perceived this very person as the all-pervading Brahman.” (AU 1.3.13) 40. The Yajur-vedic saying: “I am Brahman.” (BU 1.4.10) 41. The Såma-vedic saying: “That art thou.” (CU 6.8.7.; 6.9.4; 6.14.3) 42. The saying of the Atharvañas: “Know him alone as the one Self. Discard all other talk.” (MuñU 2.2.5) 43. All the sayings, it should be noted, follow this sequence.35 B)

44. “That yonder person is I myself. I am that yonder person.” (AÅ 2.2.4.6) 45. “He who is here in the person and he who is yonder in the sun —he is one.” (TU 2.8.1; 3.10.4) 46. “That art thou.” (CU 6.8.7 etc.) 47. “I am the breathing spirit, the intelligent Self.” (KßU 3.2)

31 A very similar group of verses is found in the MaiU 119—126. Verse 19 reads: de†akålavimukto ’smi digambarasukho ’smy aham Ù nåstinåstivimukto ’smi nakårarahito ’smy aham ÙÙ. 32 The meaning of “any type” is unclear. Perhaps it means that an advanced renouncer is not required to perform any definite type of bathing or sa∫dhyå. He may perform them as he pleases. 33 I have taken dhåtu to mean precious metal, e.g., gold and silver. There may be, however, other ways of interpreting this passage. Renouncers are forbidden to accept or even touch gold: see YPra 68.20—21, 62—63, 107—112. 34 These sixteen Great Sayings constitute an artificial list. There is an attempt to find four Great Sayings in each of the four Vedas and thus to arrive at the symbolic number 4 x 4. Våsudeva is quite frank about it. He says that these sayings are listed only to get four sets of four, for if they were truly distinct sayings the repetition of many of them in the list would involve the defect of tautology: eteßå∫ ßo∂a†atva∫ ca catuß™ayacatußkåbhipråyeña, anyathå tu paunaruktyåpåtaΔ (YPra 48.46—47). 35 The meaning is that in the following groups of four, the first belongs to the ¥g-veda, the second to the Yajur-veda, the third to the Såma-veda and the fourth to the Atharva-veda.

262

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

C) 48. “Brahman is intelligence.” (AU 3.3) 49. “I am Brahman.” (BU 1.4.10) 50. “That art thou.” (CU 6.8.7 etc.) 51. “This Self is Brahman.” (MåñU 2) D)

52. “He perceived this very person as the all-pervading Brahman.” (AU 1.3.13) 53. “He is your self, the inner controller, the immortal.” (BU 3.7.3) 54. “He perceived ether as the all-pervading Brahman.” (cf. CU 4.10.4) 55. “This, your self, is Brahman.” (?)

56. These are the sixteen Great Sayings. 57. “I am Brahman —he who knows this, on departing from this world. . . .” 58. Thus one meditates on the sayings of the four Vedas. “He has led to the region beyond the dust.”36 59. O· Homage to Brahmå! 60. Homage to Vißñu! 61. Homage to ‡iva! 62. Homage to Vasiß™ha! 63. Homage to Parå†ara! 64. Homage to Veda-Vyåsa! 65. Homage to Vai†ampåyana! 66. Homage to Sa∫vartaka! 67. Homage to ‡vetaketu! 68. Homage to Durvåsas! 69. Homage to Ja∂abharata! 70. Homage to Raivata! 71. Homage to Våmadeva! 72. Homage to Sumantu! 73. Homage to Jaimini! 74. Homage to Paila! 75. Homage to Åcårya ‡a∫kara! 76. Homage to Åcårya Haståmalaka! 77. Homage to Åcårya Tro™aka! 78. Homage to Åcårya Dattåtreya! 79. Homage to Åcårya ‡uka! 80. Homage to Nårada! 81. Homage to Åcårya Dravi∂a!37 82. Homage to Åcårya Gau∂apåda! 83. Homage to Åcårya Vivaraña!38 84. Homage to all the teachers who have promoted Knowledge! 85. Thus ends the procedure for entering the fifth order of life contained in the Vi†ve†varœ and composed by Åcårya ‡a∫kara. 36 This is an obscure passage. I favour taking sa eva∫vit asmål lokåt pretya as a pratœka. The complete text reads: sa ya eva∫vit Ù asmål lokåt pretya Ù etam annamayam åtmånam upasa∫kråmati Ù . . . “He who knows this, on departing from this world, proceeds on to that self which consists of food . . .” (TU 2.8.1; 3.10.5). In its original context in the Taittirœya Upanißad, it refers to one who has grasped the Great Saying: “He who is here in the person . . .” (above 45). iti caturñå∫ vedånåm: I have taken this to be an elliptic expression intended to show that the above consideration should be applied not only to the Great Saying: “I am Brahman” but also to all the Great Sayings of the four Vedas. paro rajase såvad o∫: This expression is found in Tripådvibhütimahånåråyaña Upanißad, 7.11; Tripuratåpinœ Up., 1.1.9; Påråyaña Up., 1.1. See Upanißadvåkyamahåko†a, p. 363. This, however, seems to be a derivative expression whose original we find in the BU 5.14.7: namas te turœyåya dar†atåya padåya parorajase Ù asåv ado må pråpad iti Ù —“Adoration to your fourth, sightly foot, the one above-the-darksome! Let not so-and-so obtain such-and-such!” The reference is to the fourth and invisible foot of the gåyatri. The passage is an imprecation against a foe. In the variant, the expression is truncated and I am not sure whether the meaning also has undergone change. In the translation I have assumed such a change, namely that the negative imprecation is changed into a positive assertion regarding the liberated man. 37 Dravi∂åcårya: This is probably a corrupt reading of Drami∂åcårya. He was an early Vedånta teacher, who probably held some form of the Bhedåbhedavåda. 38 Vivarañåcårya: i.e., Prakå†åtman, the author of the Pa∞capådikåvivaraña.

15. Ånandatœrtha’s Sa∫nyåsapaddhati : A Handbook for Madhvaite Ascetics*

Ånandatœrtha (1238—1317 CE), also known as Madhva and Pürñapraj∞a, was the founder of the Madhvaite sect of Vaißñavism and the principal advocate of the dualistic system of Vedånta. After Råmånuja, Ånandatœrtha was probably the most influential religious reformer and thinker of medieval India.1 The Granthamålikåstotra2 lists thirty-seven works authored by Ånandatœrtha. They are collectively known as Sarvamüla. Although other works are ascribed to him, only these thirty-seven are generally considered authentic. The last work in the list of the Granthamålikåstotra is entitled Sa∫nyåsapaddhati (henceforth S). The Yatiprañavakalpa and S are the only works of Ånandatœrtha that deal exclusively with the topic of renunciation. In the last verse of S the author is identified as Pürñapraj∞a. Three editions of the Sarvamüla have been published.3 Two of these omit S and contain only thirty-six works. S is published in the Bangalore edition as a work outside the Sarvamüla, though the editors appear to recognize it as a genuine work of Ånandatœrtha.4 The Bangalore edition of S is based on a manuscript dated †ake 1810 *

Originally published in the Adyar Library Bulletin (Madras, India) 44—45: 293—303.

1 On the life and work of Madhva, see B. N. K. Sharma 1981. On Madhva’s use of scrip-

tural sources, see the controversial book of Mesquita 2000. 2 This work consists of twelve verses giving a list of 37 works of Ånandatœrtha. It has been printed in R. G. Bhandarkar, A Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Presidency during the Year 1982—83 (Bombay, 1884), pp. 207—08; and Stotramahodadhi (Belgaum, 1923), pp. 382—83. Its author is variously given as Jayatœrtha, Vyåsatœrtha, etc. 3 One was published in Kumbhakonam and another by the Nirnaya Sagar Press (Bombay, 1892). The third edition was published by Uttaradi Mutt, Basavangudi, Bangalore, n.d.. 4 See the Bangalore edition, pp. 1935—36, where S is published under the title Nyåsapaddhati. It is remarked there that three works, though not included in the Sarvamüla, are

264

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

(=1888 CE), although the editors have made some corrections. In my edition, the Bangalore text is referred to by the siglum Bg. I have been able to locate only one additional manuscript of S. it is found in the library of the Oriental Institute, Baroda,5 and is referred to in my edition by the siglum Bd. The following is the description of this manuscript: Accession no. 9593. Paper. Devanågarœ script. 2 folia. Complete. Some errors and illegible writing due to scribal negligence. The manuscript is dated †ake 1761 (= 1839 CE). After the fourteen verses of S, the manuscript adds the complete text of Ånandatœrtha’s Yatiprañavakalpa. The manuscript has the following colophon: †ake 1761 virodhik®nnåmasa∫vatsare å†vina†uddha 12 te divase måghegañopanåmakabåla∫bha™™åtmajamådhavena likhita∫ samåpitam ÙÙ

A manuscript entitled Sa∫nyåsapaddhati and ascribed by M. A. Stein to Ånandatœrtha is listed in the Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Raghunåtha Temple Library of the Maharåja of Jammu and Kashmir, ed. M. A. Stein (London: 1894), Cat. No. 2005; ms. no. 2538. This, however, is not identical with S. It is a very elaborate treatise covering 163 folia. The colophon of this manuscript, unlike the editor of the catalogue, ascribes it not to Ånandatœrtha himself but to the sect of Ånadatœrtha: iti †rœmatparamaha∫saparivråjakåcårya†rœmadånandånandatœrthaså∫pradåyikaprakarañaviracitasa∫nyåsaprakaraña∫ samåptam Ù

Another manuscript with the same title and ascribed to Ånandatœrtha is found in the library of the Sanskrit College, Benares (ms. no. 105). That too is in all probability a later Madhvaite work. It is 26 folios long and cannot be identical with S. The present edition is based on the Bangalore edition (Bg) and the manuscript of the Oriental Institute, Baroda (Bd). S is a small work consisting of only fourteen verses. Its importance, however, far exceeds its size. S is the only handbook on renunciation traditionally ascribed to Ånandatœrtha: sarvamülånantargatåΔ para∫ tu †rœmadånandatœrthabhagavatpådaiΔ racitatvena så∫pradåyikair anumatå granthåΔ Ù The first work is Kandukastuti in two verses: ambaragaõgåcumbitapådaΔ padatalavidalitagurutara†aka™aΔ Ù kåliyanågakßvelanihantå sarasijanavadalavikasitanayanaΔ ÙÙ kålaghanålœkarburakåyaΔ †ara†ata†akalitasuraripunivahaΔ Ù santatam asmån påtu muråriΔ satatagasamajavakhagapatinirataΔ ÙÙ The second is a short sentence: bilavamaõgalaΔ sådhuΔ Ù The third work is S, called there Nyåsapaddhati. 5 Dr. A. N. Jani, Director of the Oriental Institute, and the staff of the manuscript library were extremely helpful in granting me access to the manuscript and in deciphering some obscure readings. I thank them for their friendly and generous assistance. I am also grateful to Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja of Madras University for drawing my attention to the Bangalore edition of the Sarvamüla and for indicating the variant readings of S found there.

Ånandatœrtha’s Sa∫nyåsapaddhati

265

written by a founder of a major Hindu sect. Next to the Yatidharmasamuccaya of Yådavaprakå†a (Olivelle 1995a), S is the oldest work of its kind that has come down to us. As the author himself points out (verse 14), these fourteen verses constitute only a very brief summary of the daily routine that a Madhvaite renouncer was expected to follow. It was probably meant to be learnt by heart in the manner of similar succinct accounts (sütra) of ritual, grammar, and the like. The details were expected to be learnt orally from a teacher. The routine —at leat the the normative routine laid down in the texts— of a renouncer’s day did not vary substantially from sect to sect. The fuller accounts of that routine found in handbooks of the Advaita and Vi†iß™ådvaita traditions agree substantially with that given in the S.6 Several rather detailed works on renunciation from the Madhvaite point of view have come down to us, but none has been edited so far. They exist only in manuscripts. Besides, the two mentioned above, I have been able to locate the following: 1. Vißñutœrtha, Sa∫nyåsavidhi. a. A. C. Burnell, Index of Sanskrit Manuscripts at the Tanjor Palace (London, 1880), p. 1096. Ms. no. 6109; 4 adhyåyas; 960 granthas; 37 folia. b. Oriental Institute, Baroda. Accession no. 8612; 13 folia; 250 granthas; incomplete (only the 3rd adhyåya). The ms. is dated †ake 1741 (1819 = CE). 2. Mådhvamatåcåravidhi (rites and observances of the Mådhva community). Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras. Cat. No. 2942; 206 folia. 15.1. Text natvå nåråyaña∫ deva∫ pürña∫ brahmåkßaroditam Ù yater åcaraña∫ vakßye yathå†åstrånusårataΔ ÙÙ1ÙÙ aruñodayavelåyåm utthåya harimånasaΔ Ù †aucådika∫ yathånyåya∫ k®två dantån vi†odhayet ÙÙ2ÙÙ ka™i†auca∫ m®då kuryåc chuddhyarthe jalasa∫sthitaΔ Ù snåna∫ kuryåd yathoktena vidhinå niyato yatiΔ ÙÙ3ÙÙ dh®tvordhvapuñ∂ra∫ vidhivat prakalpyåsanam acyute Ù mano nive†yåß™amantrån yathå†akti japec chuciΔ ÙÙ4ÙÙ dvåda†asåhasrav®tti∫ para∫ brahmåkßara∫ japet Ù dañ∂odaka∫ japasyånte dadyåd vidhividhånataΔ ÙÙ5ÙÙ 6 For the Advaita tradition, see YDhS and YPra; and for the Vi†iß™ådvaita, Olivelle 1995a.

266

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

devatå∫ paramå∫ samyak püjayec ca vidhånataΔ Ù bhikßåkåle vidhånena kuryåd bhikßå™ana∫ yatiΔ ÙÙ6ÙÙ ekasya bhikßåcaraña∫ jaghanyam iti coditam Ù anekabhikßåcaraña∫ mukhyadharmo yateΔ sm®taΔ ÙÙ7ÙÙ tripa∞casaptasadmåni gacchen nåto ’dhika∫ budhaΔ Ù bhikßågrahañakåle tu g®hñœyåd dåt®to jalam ÙÙ8ÙÙ bhikßånne taj jala∫ prokßet punar gråhya vidålajam Ù nivedayet tad anna∫ tu vårijasthodakena tu ÙÙ9ÙÙ prokßya devåya mahate mülamantreña vågyataΔ Ù tad anna∫ bhakßayet svastho hy ajavad vißñutatparaΔ ÙÙ10ÙÙ trivåram udake snåna∫ yateΔ †åstreßu coditam Ù a†aktasya yateΔ †åstre dvivåra∫ snånacodanå ÙÙ11ÙÙ atyantå†aktavißaye tv ekasnåna∫ sm®ta∫ budhaiΔ Ù vedånta†åstråbhyasana∫ mukhyadharmo yateΔ sm®taΔ ÙÙ12ÙÙ dhyeyo nåråyaño nitya∫ s®ß™isthityantakårakaΔ Ù bhaktånå∫ muktido nityam adhamåj∞åninå∫ tamaΔ ÙÙ13ÙÙ pürñapraj∞ena muninå vyåsavåkyasmuddh®tiΔ Ù nyåsadharmasya vißaye k®tå sa∫kßepataΔ †ubhå ÙÙ14ÙÙ iti †rœmadånandatœrthabhagavatpådåcåryaviracitå sa∫nyåsapaddhatiΔ samåptå Ù 15.1.1 Critical apparatus 1. yathå : Bg pürña∫ 2. -månasaΔ : Bg månasaiΔ 3. m®då : Bg bh®†a∫ [but the ms. reads m®då] 4. dh®tvordhvapuñ∂ra∫ : Bg dh®tvordhvapuñ∂raΔ; vidhivat : Bg vidhinå 5. dvåda†asåhasrav®tti∫ : Bd sahasradvåda†o v®ttiΔ; japasyånte : Bg japa†auce [japa†åntyai and japasyånte are given as variant readings] 6. kuryåd : Bg cared 7. ekasya : Bd eka-; mukhya-: Bd mukhyo 8. budhaΔ : Bg vrajet [budhaΔ given as a variant reading] 9. tajjala∫ : Bd na jala∫; prokßet : Bg prokßya∫; gråhya : Bg gråhya∫; vidålajam : Bg and Bd read vidåjalam [the constructed reading is adopted ex conjectura. vidåla is used instead of vidala metri causa. I have taken vidalaja as a synonym of vaidala, a common term for a mendicant’s bowl]; tu : Bd ta∫; vårijasthodakena : Bg vårijasyodakena

Ånandatœrtha’s Sa∫nyåsapaddhati

267

10. vißñutatparaΔ : Bg harimånasaΔ 12. atyantå†aktavißaye tv ekasnåna∫ : Bd atyantå†akte vißaye snånam eka∫ 14. nyåsadharmasya : Bd sadåcårasya Colophon: sa∫nyåsa- : Bg nyåsa 15.2.1 Translation 1. Having bowed to Nåråyaña, the God, complete7 and proclaimed by the sacred syllable O·, I shall proclaim the conduct of a renouncer according to the dictates of authoritative texts.8 2. Rising from bed at dawn, his mind fixed on Hari (Vißñu), he should perform the purifications9 and the like in the proper manner and then clean his teeth. 3. Standing in water, he should clean his loins with earth in order to purify himself. Self-controlled, the renouncer should bathe in the prescribed manner.10 4. After he has put the verticle marks on his forehead according to rule, prepared the seat,11 and directed his mind to Acyuta (Vißñu), he should make himself pure and recite the eight-syllabic formula12 according to his ability. 5. He should recite softly the supreme sacred syllable O· twelve thousand times. At the end of this soft recitation, he should pour water on his staff13 in the prescribed manner. 7 The use of the term pürña appears to be an oblique reference to the name of the author himself, identified in verse 14 as Pürñapraj∞a. 8 The term †åstra can refer to athoritative texts, such as the Dharma†åstras; it may also refer to the Veda or more generally to sacred texts. 9 “Purifications” here appears to stand for answering the calls of nature and then performing the usual purifications of the penis and the anus using soft soil and water. For details of this procedure, see YPra chapters 25—26. According to an oft-cited rule of interpretation, a renouncer is expected to perform four times the number of purifications generally prescribed for a householder: etac chauca∫ g®hasthånå∫ dviguña∫ brahmacåriñåm Ù triguña∫ syåd vanasthånå∫ yatœnå∫ ca caturguñam ÙÙ This is the purification for householders. It is twice that much for students, three times for forest hermits, and four times for ascetics. MDh 3.137; VaDh 6.19. The purification prescribed for a householder requires him to wash himself by applying one lump of earth on the penis, three on the anus, ten on the left hand, and seven on both. 10 For a detailed description of the procedure of bathing, see YPra chapters 35—36. 11 This is the place where the renouncer sits while performing his devotional rites, including the twilight worship (sa∫dhyå). 12 The eight-syllabic formula is: o∫ namo nåråyañåya. 13 This rite is known as dañ∂atarpaña that normally follows the twilight worship. For a more detailed procedure of the dañ∂atarpaña, see YPra 49. 17—31.

268

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

6. He should also duly worship the supreme deity according to rule. At the proper time14 the renouncer should go on his begging round in the prescribed manner. 7. Begging from a single house15 is declared to be the worst type. Begging from several houses, tradition states, is the principal rule for a renouncer. 8. A wise man should visit three, five, or seven houses; never more than that. At the time of receiving the almsfood, he should accept water16 from the donor. 9—10. He should sprinkle that water on the almsfood. Taking the cane bowl once again, he should announce that food to the great God using the basic formula,17 after having sprinkled it with water from a conch shell. His mind resting on Vißñu, a healthy person should silently eat that food like a goat (or like Brahmå).18 14

The proper time for begging is pointed out in the well-known verse: vidhüme sannamusale vyaõgåre bhuktavajjane Ù v®tte †aråvasa∫påte bhikßå∫ nitya∫ yati† caret ÙÙ A renouncer should go on his daily begging round only when the smoke has cleared, the pestles are at rest, the embers are extinguished, the people have finished their meal, and the dishes have been put away. MDh 6.56 For a more detailed description of the procedure for begging, see Olivelle 1995a, 6.80—202. 15 The expression ekabhikßå (or ekånna) is the technical term in ascetic literature for eating a full mean from one house or one person, a practice forbidden to Brahmanical renouncers, unless they are sick, old, or feeble (see YPra 55.45—46). A renouncer is expected to beg from several houses selected randomly, a mouthful from each. This type of begging is called mådhükara, collecting food in the manner of a bee. As a bee collects honey from many flowers without causing them injury, so a renouncer is expected to collect only a little food from each house, thus not becoming a burden on the generous donors. An oft-repeated injunction states: mådhükara∫ cared bhaikßa∫ yatir mlecchakulåd api Ù ekånna∫ tu na bhu∞jœta b®haspatisamåd api ÙÙ Let a renouncer collect the mådhükara type of almsfood even from the house of a barbarian. Let him never eat a full meal, however, from one individual, not even from one equal to B®haspati. YPra 55.4—5. 16 The householder is instructed to pour water on the hand of the renouncer before and after giving food: yatihaste jala∫ dadyåd bhaikßa∫ dadyåt punar jalam Ù One should pour water on the hand of a renouncer; then he should give food; and then water again. Paråßara Sm®ti 1.53. 17 The basic formua (mülamantra) is probably o∫ namo nåråyañåya. 18 The expression ajavat is unclear. Aja has a variety of meanings, including goat and the “unborn one” or Brahmå. If the first meaning is accepted, the meaning would be that a renouncer should eat everything he gets, whether it is to his liking or not, with relish, just as a goat, which is reputed to eat almost everything it gets. If the meaning is the second, the expression may mean that, like Brahmå, he should set his mind on Vißñu. If ajavat is somehow connectd with annam (food), then it may mean that the renouncer is expected

Ånandatœrtha’s Sa∫nyåsapaddhati

269

11. Authoritative texts19 enjoin a renouncer to bathe in water three time a day. An infirm renouncer, authoritative texts prescribe, should bathe twice a day. 12. The wise prescribe a bath once a day in the case of an extremely feeble renouncer. The principle rule for a renouncer, traditional texts state, is the repeated study of authoritative treatises of Vedånta.20 13. One should always meditate on Nåråyaña, the author of the creation, the preservation, and the destruction of the universe, the one who always grants liberation to his devotees and who is the darkness of the vilest ignorant men. 14. The sage Pürñapraj∞a has made this excellent summary of the statements of Vyåsa pertaining to the rules of renunciation. Thus ends the handbook on renunciation prepared by the Blessed Teacher ‡rœ Ånandatœrtha.

to contemplate the food he is about to eat as having the nature of Brahmå (brahmabhåvena bhåvitaΔ, see YPra 58.38). It is prescribed that a renouncer should recollect the following verse while he is eating: anna∫ brahma raso vißñur bhoktå devo mahe†varaΔ Ù eva∫ dhyåtvå dvijo bhuõkte so ’nnadoßair na lipyate ÙÙ The food is Brahmå, the taste is Vißñu, and the eater is the god Maheßvara (‡iva). A twice-born who eats after meditating in this manner is not tainted by the difilements of the food. (YPra 58.46—47) 19 See above note 8. 20 The expression vedånta†åstra may indicate authoritative texts in general dealing with Vedånta or, more likely, the Upanißads.

16. Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras*

The renouncer1 is depicted in Brahmanical literature as having reached a condition that transcends normal human existence. He is freed from all the duties and obligations, rules and regulations, customs and taboos that dog ordinary mortals. His freedom foreshadows on earth the transcendent freedom (mokßa) from the birth-death cycle (sa∫såra), a transcendence that is the ultimate aspiration in all Indian religions. It is not surprising, therefore, that renunciation is often * Originally published in Studies in Dharma†åstra, ed. Richard Lariviere, pp. 81—152. Calcutta: Firma KLM, 1984. I have omitted some sections of the original article, because they have been dealt with more extensively in my later writings included in this volume. The term dharma†åstra is meant to include the dharmasütras of Gautama, Baudhåyana, Åpastamba, Vasiß™ha, Vißñu, and Vikhanas, as well as the metrical dharma†åstras, also known as sm®tis, of Manu and Yåj∞avalkya. Especially in the fourth part of this study I have used also the sm®tis of Nårada and Parå†ara and the fragments of Kåtyåyana collected by Kane and of B®haspati collected by Jolly. In that section I have made extensive use of Kau™ilya’s Artha†åstra. Although not a dharma†åstric work, its use can be justified on the ground that its sections on law (vyavahåra) and the duties of a king parallel and complement the corresponding sections of the dharma†åstras. For the chronology of the Dharma literature, see Olivelle 2000, 2005a, 2006a. 1 The Dharma†åstras use several terms for a renouncer: bhikßu (or bhikßuka) = mendicant (GDh 3.2, 11; BDh 2.17.16, 17; VaDh 8.16; 21.33; MDh 3.94, 243; 8.360; YDh 1.108; 3.59, 62; ViDh 5.132; 59.14, 16, 18, 27; 81.18; 96.5; VkhDh 1.1, 4, 9; 2.5; 3.5, 6, 9). pravrajita = one gone forth (from home into homelessness) (GDh 12.38; 14.44; 18.16; BDh 1.19.13; ÅpDh 1.18.31; VaDh 19.23, 37; MDh 8.363, 407; YDh 2.235, 293; ViDh 5.115; 8.2; 36.7; NSm 1.140, 161; 12.73, 97; KSm 115). parivråjaka = wanderer (BDh 2.11.12, 16; VaDh 7.2; 10.1). muni = sage (BDh 2.13.7; 2.17.30; 2.18.33, 22; ÅpDh 2.9.13; 2.21.10; VaDh 6.20; 10.2; MDh 6.41, 43). yati = striver (BDh 3.3.5, 6, 7; 4.5.19; VaDh 6.19; 11.17; MDh 5.20, 137; 6.55, 56, 58, 69, 86, 87; 11.219; 12.48; YDh 2.137; 3.60; ViDh 47.7; 59.27; 60.26; VkhDh 2.8). sa∫nyåsin = abandoner (BDh 2.18.24; 3.2.17; VkhDh 3.8 [twice]). vedasa∫nyåsika, vedasa∫nyåsin (MDh 6.86; BDh 2.18.24). On the latter term and on sa∫nyåsa and sa∫-ny- √as see Olivelle 1981 (see above pp. 127—143). Renunciation, namely the state of being a renouncer, is referred to as: parivråja = wandering (ÅpDh 2.21.7). pravråjyå = going forth (YDh 2.182; ViDh 5.153; 96.1; NSm 5.25, 33; KSm 486, 679, 721, 731). mauna = silent sagehood (ÅpDh 2.21.1). sa∫-ny- √as

272

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

termed mokßa.2 The VkhDh (1.9), moreover, asserts that for a renouncer “there exists neither dharma nor adharma, neither truth nor falsehood, neither purity nor impurity, nor any such duality.”3 The Chåndogya Upanißad (2.23.1) speaks of three divisions of dharma (dharmaskandhåΔ) which correspond to the first three orders of life (å†rama), viz., perpetual student, householder and forest hermit. It then mentions “the person established in Brahman” (brahmasa∫stha), who attains immortality, while those who follow the three divisions of dharma attain only one of the heavenly abodes.4 According to the traditional interpretation,5 brahmasa∫stha is a renouncer, who is thus placed outside the pale of dharma. One definition of dharma states that it consists essentially of commands.6 A command refers to what has to be done (kartavya) and demands activity (karman). Dharma, therefore, pertains to the sphere of action (prav®tti). A renouncer, on the other hand, abandons all actions; he is said to be beyond the scope of positive injunctions. His condition is one of non-action (niv®tti).7 We should assume, therefore, that his mode of life is beyond the realm of dharma. Consequently, in theory at least we should expect renunciation to fall outside the scope of the Dharma†åstras. Yet all writers on dharma, including the earliest whose work is extant, namely Gautama, devote some space to its discussion. This paper attempts to study the process whereby renunciation became incorporated into the framework of the dharma†åstras and to examine the information on the early history of renunciation contained in them. One may, however, contend that I am engaged in a circular argument. In explaining how renunciation came to be incorporated I pre= abandonment (BDh 2.17.1, 5; MDh 1.114; 5.108; 6.96; YDh 3.32; ViDh 22.91; VkhDh 2.6 [twice]). The act of renouncing is expressed by several verbs: pra- √vraj = to go forth (BDh 2.11.16; 2.17.2; ÅpDh 2.21.8; MDh 6.34, 38, 39; ViDh 6.27; NSm 13.23). pari- √vraj = to wander (MDh 6.33, 41, 85; YDh 3.58); pra- √sthå = to depart (VaDh 10.1); sa∫-ny- √as = to abandon (BDh 2.17.27; VaDh 10.4; MDh 6.94, 95, 96; VkhDh 2.7). In the above list I have included the terms used for both male and female renouncers. The latter are referred to only rarely in the Dharma†åstras. The only term used is pravrajitå (MDh 8.363; YDh 2.293; ViDh 36.7; NSm 12.73), although in later literature the feminine forms of several words are used: bhikßukœ, bhikßuñœ, parivråjakå, sa∫nyåsinœ. The term †ramaña (Påli samaña), one of the most common terms for a renouncer in the Buddhist literature, is conspicuous by its absence in the Dharma†åstras. The term †råmañaka (often in the corrupt form †råvañaka) is used to refer to a treatise dealing with forest hermits, especially with reference to the procedure for kindling the special fire of hermits, hence called ‘†råmañaka fire’ (GDh 3.26; BDh 2.11.15; VaDh 9.10; VkhDh 1.6,7; 2.1—5). 2 See MDh 1.114; 6.35—37; YDh 3.57. 3 na teßå∫ dharmådharmau satyån®te †uddhya†uddhyådi dvaitam. VkhDh 1.9. 4 trayo dharmaskandhå yaj∞o ’dhyayana∫ dånam iti prathamas tapa eva dvitœyo brahmacåry åcåryakulavåsœ t®tœyo ’tyantam åtmånam åcåryakule ’vasådayan sarva ete puñyalokå bhavanti brahmasa∫stho ’m®tatvam eti. CU 2.23.1. For a detailed examination of this text, see Olivelle 1996b. 5 See Kane 1962—75, II: 420—21. 6 codanålakßaño ’rtho dharmaΔ. Pms, 1.1.2. 7 See Olivelle 1975, 75—83, included above pp. 63—70.

Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

273

suppose that renunciation was at first outside the scope of a Dharma†åstra and therefore needed to be incorporated. Because I have actually been confronted with this objection by at least two scholars, I feel obliged to answer it. Only the most uncritical believer in an immutable sanåtana dharma will fail to observe that two of the early Dharmasütras, viz., Gautama and Baudhåyana, do not accord a place to renunciation within their respective structures. Renunciation is mentioned at all only in describing the å†ramas, a theory they ascribe to “some” and with which they strongly disagree. Baudhåyana especially inveighs against the proponents of the theory, in effect calling it the work of a devil (BDh 2.11.28). This indicates that at least these two authors did not view renunciation as falling within the range of topics to be dealt with in their respective treatises. When, on the other hand, we look at the Dharmasütras of Åpastamba and Vasiß™ha, we find that the å†rama theory has become an integral part of these treatises. Renunciation is integrated into the dharma†åstric scheme, and it is the theoretical advance made with the invention of the å†rama theory that made it possible. My argument, therefore, is not circular, and I hope that this will be demonstrated by the following textual analysis of the Dharmasütras.8 16.1. Dharma†åstras and the Rules of Renunciation With the increase in importance of the å†rama theory there was a parallel increase in the attention paid by the Dharma†åstras to the rules governing renunciation as an institution and the life and activities of renouncers. These rules generally fall into two categories. The first consists of rules that regulate renunciation and renouncers in so far as they constitute a distinct religious institution. I will discuss these rules in the present section of this paper. Renouncers, in spited of their rejection of society and social relationships, exist in the world and come into contact with social institutions. The second category of rules regulates the intercourse between renouncers and society. These rules will be studied in the last part of this paper, which deals with renouncer’s position in Hindu law. The Dharma†åstras give a progressively increasing number and variety of rules on renunciation.9 In other areas of dharma this may offer valuable information regarding the development of an institution and of laws associated with it. Unfortunately, the problem is more complex with regard to renunciation. Dharma†åstric rules on renunciation, like most other rules contained in these works, are customary 8 In the original article, there was a section here on “Dharma, ņrama and Renunciation.” It is omitted here, because I have written a book on this subject: Olivelle 1993. 9 In this section I have deliberately left out those rules that deal with the general lifestyle of renouncers: poverty, celibacy, homelessness, wandering, mendicancy, rain residence, etc. Several works have dealt with this topic extensively: Kane 1962—75, II: 931—38; H.D. Sharma 1939: 39—48.

274

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

laws (Lingat 1973: 135—206). They are either based on actual customs observed among renouncers or borrowed from specialized works on renunciation, which had codified customary practice. Påñini,10 for example, speaks of the bhikßusütras composed by Pårå†arya and Karmanda. The Dharma†åstras themselves refer to a specialized work on hermits composed by Vikhanas.11 There is no reason to doubt that they depended on similar specialized treatises, such as those mentioned by Påñini, in expounding the rules of renunciation. Vasiß™ha (21.33) explicitly refers to such treatises, further corroborating the evidence of Påñini. The problem, therefore, that faces the student of these †åstric rules is that their development is evidence only of growing involvement of the Dharma†åstras with the subject of renunciation. They are not necessarily evidence of a development within the institution of renunciation. In other words, we cannot depend on the evolution of †åstric rules on renunciation to trace the historical development of renunciation. The status of dharma†åstric provisions has been a matter of controversy among scholars. It has been argued that India knew no law other than custom; Dharma†åstras are nothing more than the codification of customary law. This certainly is an overstatement, as admirably demonstrated by Lingat.12 Once customs were codified in †åstras they assumed an independent existence. The codified rules were invested with the transcendent authority of Vedic dharma. They could not be abrogated; their development occurred mainly through the labours of interpreters and exegetes. The †åstras thus influenced and regulated custom; they became the yardsticks of proper conduct (åcåra). This general observation is valid also in the area of renunciation. The †åstras did not merely reflect the customs prevalent among renouncers; they became the normative texts for succeeding generations of Hindu renouncers.13 The †åstric provisions, on the one hand, served as the basis for medieval debates on controversial points, e.g., qualification for renunciation, abandonment of the sacrificial cord (Olivelle 1986—87). On the other hand, they reflect similar controversies of a more ancient period. Their study, therefore, is not without interest for the history of Hindu renunciation. In one important aspect the rules on renunciation differ from other †åstric rules. Whatever may be said about a legislative authority, there existed without any doubt in traditional India a judicial and Aß™ådhyåyi, 4.3.110—111. See GDh 3.27 (Haradatta interprets †råmañaka as vaikhånasa∫ †åstram); BDh 2.11.14—15; 3.3.15, 17; MDh 6.21. 12 Lingat 1973, 137—142. J.D.M. Derrett observes: “Such instances dispose at once of the extreme notion, once commonly heard, that †åstric texts never played a practical role, or that if they did, they did so only when it pleased some individuals to invoke them.” ‘Appendix by the Translator’ to Lingat 1973, 274. For more recent studies of this issue, see Lariviere 2004, Wezler 2004, Olivelle 2004b. 13 An admirable example of this is given by Derrett 1974. 10 11

Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

275

executive authority which could enforce the †åstric provisions. This authority was vested in the king and the heads of corporate entities such as guilds. Prior to the organization of ma™has (monastic centres) around the time of ‡a∫kara (8th century CE), there was no bearer of such judicial power among Hindu renouncers. Buddhist monks and other non-Hindu renouncer groups had a special judicial setup. In the Buddhist saõgha, judicial power was exercised by the entire community resident in a given monastery.14 We have no evidence as to how this power was exercised in other sects. However, Hindu law recognized the authority of these groups to enforce their respective laws on their members. As a last resort the king himself could intervene to see that the judgments of these authorities were carried out.15 As far as we know, the Hindu renouncer, to whom the †åstric prescriptions are addressed, was not subject to such a corporate judicial authority. The †åstric rules were, therefore, at best guides to the renouncers. There was no recognized authority that could enforce those rules and punish the violators. This situation probably helped sham renouncers who were as common in ancient India as today. Nevertheless, the †åstric provisions presupposed, and in their turn created, certain expectations within the Hindu public. These expectations, especially in the area of morality and holiness, had to be met by renouncers if they were to gain the support of the people on whom they depended for their very livelihood. A passage of Kau™ilya’s Artha†åstra (3.16.42) suggests that the king may have often taken it upon himself to oversee the conduct of renouncers in his realm. Kau™ilya admonishes the king to punish wayward renouncers (pravrayåsu v®thåcårån råjå dañ∂ena vårayet). 16.2. Qualification for Renunciation The entry into renunciation was viewed increasingly in terms of a rite of passage. A rite of passage is, first and foremost, a ritual act, and the first question confronting an exegete dealing with a rite concerns the person qualified or entitled to perform it (adhikårin). Who is entitled to renounce? This question is neither formulated nor explicitly answered in the Dharma†åstras. Later debate on this controversial point, however, centers around †åstric evidence. It may be fruitful, therefore, to examine their implicit assumptions. The controversy regarding qualifications boils down to two questions: A) At what point in life is a man allowed to renounce; B) To what varña should a man belong in order to be entitled to renounce. A related question is whether it is permissible for women to renounce. The first question is by far the older and is dealt with more fully in the Dharma†åstras. The earliest opinion, recorded in Gautama, 14 Such judicial acts were known as saõghakamma: see S. Dutt 1960, 120—45. In Jaina monasticism the role of judge was normally assumed by the åcårya: see Deo 1956, 379. 15 See NSm 10.1—6; YDh 2.185—191.

276

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Proto-Baudhåyana,16 Åpastamba and Vasiß™ha, was that a young man who has completed his Vedic studies may choose one of the four å†ramas. He may, therefore, decide to become a renouncer at this stage.17 Manu (6.33) and Vißñu (96.1) give the opinion that one should renounce from the hermit’s å†rama. However, the growing tendency, already present in Manu (6.35—37), was to lay emphasis on the payment of the three debts —study, sacrifice and procreation— before renouncing. This gives rise to the view, expressly declared by Yåj∞avalkya (3.56), that one may renounce as a householder provided one has paid the three debts. No doubt other variants of these principal views were held by some. Deutero-Baudhåyana (2.17.1—6) gives five such views, each of which restricts renunciation to one of the following: 1) those who have completed their Vedic studies; 2) †ålœnas and yåyåvaras who are childless;18 3) widowers; 4) those who are seventy years old and have established their children in their duties; 5) hermits. A similar enumeration of those qualified to renounce is given in the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra 2.6. These opinions are interesting in that all save the first restrict renunciation to those who are no longer able to shoulder the full burden of household duties. Such currents of thought may have been the forerunners of the view apparently widespread among conservative elements of Bråhmañism that renunciation and perpetual studentship were meant only for those who, for some reason or other, were either not able or not entitled to assume household responsibilities, e.g., the blind, the deaf, the crippled, and the impotent.19 The question of the varña of those entitled to renounce is not explicitly dealt with in the Dharma†åstras. Nevertheless, they betray certain implicit assumptions in this regard. According to the original å†rama theory, a person who has completed his Vedic studies can select an å†rama, including renunciation (Olivelle 1993, 73—82). No further specifications are added. Now, initiation and Vedic study were not only permitted but obligatory on all twice-born varñas, viz., Bråhmaña, Kßatriya and Vai†ya. Thus the assumption has to be that renunciation was open to all twice-born men. There is nothing in Manu, Vißñu or Yåj∞avalkya to indicate that they did not share this view. Medieval proponents of the view that only Brahmins are entitled to renounce see in the use of the words bråhmaña, dvijottama, and vipra by Manu (5.108; 6.38, 70, 93, 97) scriptural support for their opinion. Such an interpretation is misleading. Dharma†åstric writers 16

This is the first part of BDh: see Olivelle 1993, 86—88. See GDh 3.1; BDh 2.11.9, 12; ÅpDh 2.21.3, 8; VaDh 7.3. 18 On these kinds of holy householders, see Olivelle 1993, 162—170. 19 That this was widespread is indicated by the frequency with which it is attacked by the proponents of renunciations: seee ‡a∫kara on VeS 3.4.20; Sure†vara, BrΔadårañyakopanißadbhåßyavårttika (Ånandå†rama Sanskrit Series, 16; Poona 1894), p. 1908, verse 1144; Medhåthiti on MDh 6.36; Vij∞åne†vara on YDh 3.56—57. A similar argument is used by Bhœma to dissuade Yudhiß™hira from renouncing after the victorious battle: MBh 12.10.17. 17

Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

277

often direct their prescriptions at Brahmins without intending to limit them to Brahmins. Furthermore, using the same argument, we can show that both Manu and Yåj∞avalkya permitted all twice-born to renounce, for both these authors use the word dvija (twice-born) with reference to renouncers (see MDh 6.40, 75, 91, 94; YDh 3.61). However, the increasing use of the words bråhmaña, dvijottama and vipra in the metrical sm®tis shows that even though theoretically the prescriptions of these texts apply to all twice-born, they were, in fact, beginning to be addressed primarily to Brahmins. As Biardeau (1976, 32) observes, “Une lecture attentive des premiers chapitres de la Manu-sm®ti, par exemple, . . . révéle que le ‘deux-fois-ne’ auquel s’addressent les prescriptions est en fait le bråhmane.” The first and, as far as I know, the only Dharma†åstra to limit renunciation to Brahmins is the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra, which has to be dated after Manu and, possibly, Yåj∞avalkya. Its distribution of the å†ramas among the varñas is too neat to be anything but an abstract formula: “For the Brahmin there are four å†ramas, for the K†atriya the first three and for the Vai†ya only the first two” (VkhDh 1.1, 9).20 Even though there is not a single explicit statement in the classical Dharma†åstras barring ‡üdras from renunciation,21 it is evident that in their view renunciation was not meant for ‡üdras. According to all these works a person had to undergo initiation and complete Vedic study before renouncing. Now, ‡üdras are not entitled to be initiated or to be taught the Veda.22 Here, as well as in the renunciation of women, we must distinguish three questions: (1) Its legitimacy in the eyes of dharma; (2) Its legality in the eyes of the law; and (3) Its historicity. The inability to separate these questions can only lead to confusion.23 The Dharma†åstras are concerned only with the first question, and it is certain that they considered the renunciation of ‡üdras illegitimate. It is equally 20 For a discussion on the medieval controversy on this point, see Kane 1962—75, II: 942-44. In medieval times the very existence of Kßatriyas and Vai†yas in the Kali age was questioned: Kane 1962—75, II: 380—82. A considerable body of opinion claimed that in our age society consisted of only Brahmins and ‡üdras. This theory may have influenced the growing belief among medieval writers that only Brahmins are allowed to renounce. 21 Such statements are, of course, found in later sm®tis. Atri (19.37) lists renunciation among the six causes that degrade ‡üdras and women: japas tapas tœrthayåtrå pravrajyå mantrasådhanam Ù devatårådhana∫ caiva strœ†üdrapatanåni †a™ ÙÙ —“Soft recitation, ascetic toil, pilgrimage, renunciation, employing ritual formulas, and divine worship are the six causes that cause women and ‡üdras to fall.” In the MBh 13.150.*692 a ‡üdra confesses that he is not entitled to resort to the four å†ramas: †üdro ’ham nådhikåro me cåturå†ramyasevane ÙÙ —“I am a ‡üdra; I am not entitle to undertake the four å†ramas.” See also MBh 3.149.36; 12.62.2. See also Kåtyåyana’s statement below note 26. 22 See Pms 6.1.33. Gautama (12.4) states that if a ‡üdra listens to the Veda molten lead should be poured in his ears, if he utters the Veda his tongue should be cut off, and if he remembers the Veda his body should be hacked. One is not allowed to study the Veda in the presence of a ‡üdra: GDh 16.18—19: ÅpDh 1.9.9; VaDh 18.3; YDh 1.148. 23 See, for example, Kane 1962—75, II: 942—46; Chakraborty 1973: 90—99; H.D. Sharma 1939: 63—64.

278

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

certain, however, that ‡üdras did renounce.24 Evidence for this is found in the Dharma†åstras themselves. Both Vißñu (5.115) and Yåj∞avalkya (2.235) levy a fine of one hundred pañas on a person who feeds a ‡üdra renouncer (†üdrapravrajita) at a feast in honor of the gods or manes. Kau™ilya (A‡ 3.20.16) also prescribes a fine of one hundred pañas for similarly feeding a v®ßalapravrajita (‡üdra or outcaste renouncer) as well as ‡åkyas (Buddhist monks) and Åjœvikas. Here ‡üdra renouncers are distinguished from those belonging to heretical sects. There is, however, a tendency in the Dharma†åstras to group together ‡üdra and heretical renouncers, because their position is similar vis-à-vis the †åstric provisions. This general class of renouncers may be intended by Åpastamba (1.18.31) when he lists “one who has renounced without keeping to the rule” (avidhinå ca pravrajitaΔ) among people whose food is not to be eaten. It was thus possible to renounce outside the †åstric prescriptions, and evidence points to the fact that many ‡üdras did so. The conclusion we can draw from the existence of ‡üdra renouncers is that, althought their renunciation goes against the †åstras, nevertheless they were generally tolerated. Hindu law gives them a legal standing similar to that of heretical renouncers.25 There are, however, exceptions to this tolerance. According to Kåtyåyana (486) the king should either corporally punish or fine a ‡üdra who takes to renunciation.26 The case of a woman’s right to renounce is similar to that of a ‡üdra. Theoretically women should be barred from renunciation, because they are not entitled to initiation or Vedic study. The Dharma†åstras, moreove, consider women never to be independent: in childhood they are under the control of their fathers, in adulthood under that of their husbands, and as widows under that of their sons.27 Renunciation, on the contrary, implies total freedom and independence. Nevertheless, according to a text ascribed to Baudhåyana by Vij∞åne†våra (on YDh 3.58), some permitted even women to renounce (strœñå∫ caike). Such a provision, however, is not found either in the extant sütra of Baudhåyana or in any other extant 24 The Buddha, for example, in his conversation with King Ajåta†atru speaks of a slaves’s renunciation: see DN ii. 35—36. 25 On the question of the validity of a ‡üdra’s renunciation in modern Indian law, see Kane 1962—75, II: 951—52. 26 pravrajyåvasita∫ †üdra∫ japahomaparåyañam Ù vadhena †åsayet påpa∫ dañ∂yo vå dviguña∫ damam Ù — “When a ‡üdra undertakes renunciation or is given to soft recitation and burnt offerings, he [the king] should inflict corporal punishment on him [or execute him] or impose a double fine.” KSm 486. The term avasita is often used as a synonym of pratyavasita (see NSm 5.25, 33; YDh 2.183). In that sense this injunction would refer to a ‡üdra who is an apostate from renunciation. But I favour, with Kane (note to KSm 486), the interpretation given in theVœramitrodaya that avasita means sita. Thus it refers to a ‡üdra who has taken to renunciation. This interpretation tallies with the next provision, i.e., japahomaparåyañam. Avasita is used in the latter sense by Aparårka and ‡ülapañi on YDh 2.192 and by Kåtyåyana himself at KSm 679. 27 See VaDh 5.1—2; BDh 2.3.44—46; MDh 5.147—149; 9.2—3; ViDh 25.12—13; YDh 1.85—86; NSm 1.22—26, 30, 35.

Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

279

Dharma†åstra. Furthermore, the text of Atri cited above (fn. 21) clearly forbids the renunciation of women. It is, therefore, safe to assume that at least the mainstream of the †åstric tradition considered the renunciation of women as illegitimate. Yet the Dharma†åstras themselves28 bear witness to the fact that female renouncers did exist in ancient India and that they were fairly widespread. Vasiß™ha (19.29-34) says that when a king has died the new king should maintain the chief queen as well as the other wives of the deceased. If, however, they do not wish to live under his care they may renounce: anicchantyo vå pravrajeran. Manu (8.363) enjoins a small fine on those who secretly converse with female renouncers, even though the general rule is that such persons should be considered guilty of adultery and dealt with accordingly (MDh 8.356-358). Manu’s low opinion of female renouncers is shared by Yåj∞avalkya (2.293) and Kau™ilya (A‡ 4.13.36), who impose a fine of only twentyfour pañas for having intercourse with a female renouncer (pravrajitågama). This stands in contrast to the views of Vißñu (36.7) and Nårada (12.74), who consider sex with a female renouncer as a crime equal to that of violating the teacher’s bed. The Artha†åstra also indicates that female renouncers were a common phenomenon in ancient Indian society. There are numerous prescriptions in it affecting female renouncers, and the king is urged to use them as spies.29 Thus, although the renunciation of ‡üdras and women was considered illegitimate by the Dharma†åstras, it was a common phenomenon in ancient India. This fact was recognized by law. ‡üdra and female renouncers had a legal standing; several provisions of Hindu law attempt to regulate their intercourse with society. 16.3. Entry into Renunciation Little information is contained in the Dharmsütras on the rite or ceremony that accompanies the act of renouncing. It is beyond doubt, however, that such a rite, at least in a rudimentary form, did exist during the sütra period. Proto-Baudhåyana (2.11.16) says that one should give up one’s relations and, without any possessions, renounce (pravrajet) “in the prescribed manner” (yathåvidhi). The statemement, morover, of Åpastamba (1.18.31) that the food of those who have not renounced in the prescribed manner (avidhinå pravrajitaΔ) should not be eaten shows his awareness of a ‘right way’ to 28 There is, of course, extensive evidence from other sources. Both the Buddhists and the Jains had orders of monks and nuns. The Gañapå™ha (233 on Påñini 2.1.70) speaks of †ramañå, pravrajitå, and tåpasœ. Pana∞jali on Påñini 3.2.14 refers to a female renouncer (parivråjakå) named ‡a∫karå. The Artha†åstra is full of references to female renouncers, calling them pravrajitå (2.23.2; 4.13.36), parivråjikå (1.10.7; 1.12.4) and bhikßukœ (1.12.10,13; 3.3.13; 3.4.9; 5.1.19,50; 11.1.52). See below, chapter 17. for a discussion of the Artha†åstra evidence. 29 See the preceding note for references.

280

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

renounce. The term vidhi (rule, procedure) no doubt refers to some rite or procedure of renunciation laid down in the †åstras. Vasiß™ha is the first to give us any information about this procedure. He refers to one of its elements, namely the gift of safety (abhayadakßiñå or abhayadåna) to all creatures: “A renouncer should depart from his house after giving the gift of safety to all creatures.”30 This element of the renunciatory rite is mentioned also by Manu (6.39). The gift of safety is the ritual expression of non-injury (ahi∫så), a fundamental virtue of renunciation.31 Manu(6.38), Vißñu (96.1—2) and Yåj∞avalkya (3.56) provide us with further information on this rite. The candidate for renunciation is required to offer a sacrifice to Prajåpati (pråjåpatyeß™i) at which all his possessions are given as a sacrificial fee to the officiating priests (sarvavedasadakßiñå). It was perhaps intended as a parellel to the Vedic vi†vajit sacrifice.32 Although the candidate was required to abandon all earthly possessions, it is very doubtful whether he actually gave all that to the officiating priests. The family of the candidate, especially if he was married and had children, would not have countenanced such a squandering of family property. Besides, there are explicit rules in the Dharma†åstras forbidding precisely such excessive generosity. According to Yåj∞avalkya (2.175) and Manu (11.9), one is permitted to give away wealth only if it does not harm the well-being of one’s family. Charity, in other words, begins at home. In any case one is forbidden to give away all one’s possessions, especially if one has children.33 Furthermore, as we shall see, the property candidate was subject to partitioning among his heirs at the time of renunciation. Neither the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra nor Deutero-Baudhåyana, both of which give a detailed account of the rite, mentions the gift of all one’s possessions to the priests. This requirement, however, is given in medieval treatises on the subject.34 The sacrificial fee of all one’s possessions was probably given only in a symbolic manner. Its importances lies in the fact that it was the ritual interpretation and expression of the duty to abandon all worldly possessions. Visualizing this abandonment as a sacrificial fee, the ritualists homologized it with the ancient custom of the vi†vajit. Thus both the promise of non-injury and the abandonment of all posessions are viewed ritually as sacrificial fees (dakßiñå) paid at the conclusion of the renunciatory rite. The candidate also deposits his sacred fires in his self (agnisamåropa) and from then lives without a fire. This rite was probably in parivråjakaΔ sarvabhütåbhayadakßiñå∫ datvå pratiß™heta. VaDh 10.1. For an interesting comparison between the gift of safety given by a renouncer and that given by a king and warrior through conquest, see Krick 1977, 111. 32 On the role of gift giving in the Vedic ritual, see Heesterman 1959, 1964. See also his interesting remarks on the abhijit and the vi†vajit sacrifices and their relationship to ascetical modes of life (Heesterman 1964, 25f). 33 See YDh 2.175; NSm 4.4; KSm 640; B®Sm 15.3—4; Dakßa 3.19.20. 34 See YDhS, p. 17; YPra 21.78. 30

31

Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

281

the mind of Åpastamba (2.21.10) when he called a renouncer anagni (“man without a fire”), which has remained a common epithet.35 The prohibition against the use of fire symbolizes the renouncer’s rejection of domestic life and ritual activities; fire is the central element of Vedic rites and fire/cooking is an almost universal symbol of domestic life. Thus, renouncers are quoted by Proto-Baudhåyana (2.11.26) as saying: “Abandoning the rites taught in the Veda, cut off from both (worlds), we attach ourselves to the central sphere (Brahman).” The rejection of fire, however, is viewed in ritual terms as an internalization; it is given ritual expression in the rite of agnisamåropa. Of all the Dharma†åstras, only the Deutero-Baudhåyana (2.17.10— 39) and the VkhDh (2.6—7) give us a detailed description of the renunciatory rite. Kane (1962—75, II: 953—956) has given a full and faithful account of the rite according to the Deutero-Baudhåyana, to which I refer the reader. Here I intend to point out some discrepancies between that and the description given in the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra. These discrepancies furnish us with valuable information on the early history of the rite. According to both, the rite is spread over a period of two days. The Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra requires the candidate to perform a pråjåpatya penance36 on the first day. This requirement is found in all medieval accounts of the rite.37 The Deutero-Baudhåyana, however, is silent on this point. The latter, on the other hand, mentions the rite of entry into såvitrœ (såvitrœprave†a) performed on the first day. It consists of reciting each quarter-verse (påda) of the såvitrœ formula followed by the words “I enter såvitrœ” (såvitrœ∫ pravi†åmi), and then the whole formula followed by the same words. The renouncer thus ritually expresses his rejection of all ritual formulae (mantra) except the mystic syllable O·.38 The Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra, on the other hand, merely instructs the candidate to recite the såvitrœ formula by quarter-verse, next by half-verse, and finally the entire verse. This is done on the second day. The same rite is performed, according to the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra (2.2), at the ceremony for becoming a hermit. The abandonment, therefore, of the såvitrœ formula even by the renouncer is not envisaged by the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra. Thus after the bath that concludes the renunciatory rite the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra (2.8.) requires the new renouncer to recite the såvitrœ one thousand or one hundred times. According to the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra, the såvitrœ is used also in taking possession of the begging-bowl. Both Deutero-Baudhåyana and the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra agree that the sacrifice performed on the day of renunciation is offered to Agni Vai†vånara. This goes against the presecriptions of See BDh 2.18.22; MDh 6.43; BhG 6.1. For a description of this penance see GDh 26.2—5; BDh 2.2.38; 4.5.6; ÅpDh 1.27.7; VaDh 21.20; MDh 11.212; ViDh 46.10; YDh 3.320. 37 See YDhS, pp. 6—8; YPra 6.1—19. 38 See Vidyårañya, Prañavamœmå∫så cited in YPra 40.12 (see Olivelle 1981b). 35

36

282

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Manu, Vißñu, and Yåj∞avalkya mentioned earlier, according to which it is offered to Prajåpati. There probably existed a deep controversy on this point as indicated by the Jåbåla ¨panißad (4), which strongly condemns the latter view. Medieval authors reckon that the essential element of the rite —that which makes the candidate a renouncer— is the recitation of the formula known as praißa: “I have renounced” (sa∫nyasta∫ mayå).39 DeuteroBaudhåyana, however, does not term it praißa. The Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra is probably the first work to use this mysterious term to denote the renunciatory formula. In the vedic ritual, praißa is the call or invitation made by one priest to another to commence an action or a recitation.40 How that term came to be applied to the proclamation that one has renounced remains unclear. According to the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra, after reciting the såvitrœ formula but before depositing the fires in the self and reciting the praißa, the candidate says: “I enter the mendicant å†rama” (bhikßå†rama∫ pravi†åmi). Thereupon the author comments: “Thus he enters it” (iti ta∫ pravi†ati), which can only mean that by reciting these words the candidate enters the renouncer’s å†rama. According to the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra, therefore, the actual moment of renunciation is when the candidate utters these words. The praißa is then a mere public proclamation of this new status. Could this be the reason why the verb sa∫nyasta∫ in the praißa formula is put in the past tense? Another difference in the two accounts is the point at which the gift of safety is given. According to Deutero-Baudhåyana, it is given immediately after reciting the praißa, while the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra considers it the last element of the rite, coming after the tarpaña and the worship of the sun following the final bath. Two points in the renunciatory rite created much controversy in the middle ages. The first is whether a renouncer discards the sacrificial cord (yaj∞opavœta) and shaves the top-knot (†ikhå). The second concerns the number of staffs a renouncer should carry —a single staff (ekadañ∂a) or three staffs tied together (tridañda or triviß™abdha). This controversy was mainly between the ‡a∫karite renouncers and the followers of Råmånuja. The former allowed a top-knot, a sacrificial cord and a triple staff to the two lower grades of renouncers, Ku™œcakas and Bahüdakas. The highest class of renouncers, the Paramaha∫sas, had neither a top-knot nor a sacrificial cord and carried a single staff. The followers of Råmånuja saw not only the top-knot and the cord, but also the triple staff as obligatory on all renouncers. A bitter attack on the ‡a∫karite position is contained in Varadåcårya’s Yatiliõgasamarthana and Vedånta De†ika’s Yatiliõgabhedabhaõgavåda.41 39

See YDhS, p. 18; YPra 20.1—2.

40 See L. Renou, Vocabulaire du Rituel Védique (Paris: Librairie Klincksieck, 1954), p. 117. 41 Ed. P.B. Anantacharya. ‡åstramuktåvalœ, Nos. 37—38; Conjeeveram 1911. The latter work is the 64th chapter of Vedånta De†ika’s ‡atadüßañœ. See Olivelle 1986—87.

Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

283

Neither Deutero-Baudhåyana nor the Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra says anything about shaving the top-knot. According to Vasiß™ha (10.6), a renouncer should be shaven-headed (muñ∂a), which implies the absence of a top-knot. Gautama (3.22) gives the option of either keeping the top-knot or shaving it (muñ∂aΔ †ikhœ vå). The expression †ikhåmuñ∂aΔ in Proto-Baudhåyana (2.11.18) can mean that he is shaven-headed except for the top-knot, the interpretation favored by Govinda, or that he shaves his head including the topknot. None of the dharma†åstras prescribes the abandoment of the sacrificial cord. The Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra (2.7), in fact, explicitly states that the new renouncer takes the girdle, the sacrificial cord, the black antelope skin, and the upper dress in the same manner as at Vedic initiation.42 16.4. Renunciation and Hindu Law Although separated from worldly ties and concerns, renouncers all the same came into close contact with society. This gave rise to a set of rules that regulated the intercourse between renouncers and society and thereby defined their social position. The total withdrawal from society resulting from renunciation came to be viewed increasingly in terms of death. The renouncer’s separation from social ties was as total and as final as that caused by death. The belief in the ritual/legal death of the renouncer had far-reaching consequences in the area of religious practice. Its effect was felt even in the area of law; Hindu jurisprudence viewed renunciation as a civil death. This general principle guided its treatment of the renouncer. The most radical consequence of a renouncer’s civil death is his inability to enter into a contract or to transact any business that is legally binding. Kau™ilya (A‡ 3.1.12) is most explicit on this point: “Legal transactions (vyavahåra) cannot be concluded by dependents (apå†rayavat) and renouncers (pravrajita).” As, on the one hand, civil death disqualifies him from future transactions, so, on the other, it releases him form contracts he had previously entered into. The most important of contracts so dissolved is his marriage. Renunciation of the husband is one of the three causes generally recognized as dissolving a marriage,43 the other two being his prolonged absence in a distant land and his physical death. While renunciation results in civil death, a prolonged absence was probably seen as creat42 In the original essay, there was a section on the staffs of a renouncer and another on the term sa∫nyåsa and the classification of renouncers. They have been omitted, because I have written more extensively on this topic: see chapters 8 and 13 of this volume. 43 A similar provision existed in the Catholic Church. According to Canon Law a nonconsummated marriage is dissolved ipso facto when the husband enters “religion,” i.e., takes the vows of monastic life. But in the Indian case consummation is irrelevant. See A. S. Mervyn Fernando, The Dissolution of a Non-Conssumate marriage by solemn Religious Profession. Freiburg im Breis, 1964.

284

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

ing a presumption of death.44 A related question is whether a wife who is thus released from the matrimonial contract can also remarry. The most liberal view is expressed by Kau™ilya: The wife of a man who has been away for a long time in a distant land, or has become a renouncer (pravrajita), or is dead shall wait for seven menstrual periods, for one year if she has borne children. After that she may45 approach (for marriage) a full brother of the husband. dœrghapravåsinaΔ pravrajitasya pretasya vå bhåryå sapta tœrthåny åkåõkßeta, sa∫vatsara∫ prajåtå ÙÙ (A‡ 3.4.37—38)

Gautama is the only author to make a disctinction between the wife of a man who has gone away and the wife of a man who has renounced. He allows remarriage for the former (GDh 18.15) but not for the the latter (GDh 18.16). Both Vasiß™ha (VaDh 17.75—78) and Manu (MDh 9.76) allow the wife of a man gone abroad for a long time to remarry, but do not mention the case of a renouncer’s wife. Nårada, on the other hand, gives five occasions when a wife may remarry: when the husband is lost or dead, has renounced, is impotent, or has fallen from his caste.46 The trend, however, in the dharma†åstric tradition is to disallow the remarriage of women.47 Medieval legal digests, therefore, interpret the above passage of Nårada as referring to a practice of a previous age (yuga), which should not be followed in the present Kali age.48 The principle of the renouncer’s civil death is applied to two other important areas: partition of property and debt. When a man becomes a renouncer his property is subject to partition among his heirs.49 An allusion to it is found already in the B®hadårañyaka Upanißad (2.4.1) where Yåj∞avalkya prior to “going forth from home” desires to make a settlement between his two wives. Gautama (GDh 28.2) allows the father to divide his property when the mother 44 How long one has to be away before death is presumed has been a matter of controversy, especially because this presumption was linked to the possibility of remarriage of the wife or her leviratic union (niyoga). Gautama (18.15) gives six years as the length of absence, while others adjust the length according to the caste of the absentee: see VaDh 17.75—78; MDh 9.76; NSm 12.98—101; Kane 1962—75, II: 608—23. 45 It is true that Kau™ilya (A‡ 3.3.19) rules out divorce in the case of the first four types of marriage, viz., bråhma, pråjåpatya, årßa and daiva. This prohibition, however, most probably is directed against divorce by mutual consent, spoken of immediately before at A‡ 3.3.15—18. 46 naß™e m®te pravrajite klœbe ca patite patau Ù pa∞casv åpatsu nårœñå∫ patir anyo vidhœyate ÙÙ NSm 12.97; see Parå†ara-sm®ti, 4.30; Agni Puråña, 154.5—6. 47 See ÅpDh 2.11.13—14; MDh 5.156—160; 9.46—47, 65; KSm 837, 924—926; ViDh 25.14. “The theory of dharma†åstra writers is that marriage when completed by homa and saptapadœ is indissoluble.” Kane 1962—75, II: 619. 48 See Kane 1962—75, II: 619. 49 “It is before the stage of hermit or ascetic, i.e., in the lifetime of the father, that family property should be divided among sons, according to the theory of the for å†ramas.” Lingat 1973, 58.

Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

285

is past child-bearing age. Nårada (NSm 13.4) allows a father who is very old to distribute his property at will among his sons. According to him it is also possible for the sons to partiiton the property among themselves either when the father is dead ( NSm 13.2)or when the mother has ceased to menstruate, the sisters are married, and the father has turned away from sexual desires and worldly pursuits (NSm 13.3). The latter condition is interpreted by ‡ülapåñi on YDh 2.114 as referring to the renunciation of the father. This is probably right, for at 13.24 Nårada states that the property of a man who, being childless, dies or renounces (pravrajet) is divided among his brothers.50 Manu (9.104) states that the brothers should divide the inheritance after the passing of the father and mother (ürdhva∫ pitu† ca måtu† ca). Råghavånanda, commenting on this passage, takes the term ürdhva∫ to designate implicitly (upalakßaña) also the renunciation (pravrajyå) of the parents. Consequently, when a person renounces there are two ways in which his property can be partitioned. He can divide his property himself before renouncing. This course is recommended in the Kuñ∂ikå Upanißad (18). If, however, he renounces without doing so, he loses all rights with regard to his property, and his heirs can partition the property among themselves, just as if the father were dead. The civil death of the renouncer makes him incapable of owning property. The property he ownded prior to renunciation goes to his legitimate heirs. After renunciation he can no longer inherit any property. This is explicitly stated by Vasiß™ha (17.52): sons who have gone to another å†rama, i.e., to an å†rama different from that of the householder, do not inherit paternal wealth (ana∫†ås tv å†ramåntaragatåΔ). V®ddha-Hårita (7.259) excludes the following from a share of the inheritance: brothers who are hermits, renouncers, perpetual students, heretics, sinners, and those who do not perform Vedic rites.51 In spite of his life of poverty, a renouncer possesses certain essential items, such as clothes and a begging-bowl. There are explicit rules regarding who is to inherit these when he dies. These rules generally deal with all three å†ramas that are celibate and given to poverty: perpetual student, hermit, and renouncer. Yåj∞avalkya states: The heirs of a hermit, of a renouncer, and of a perpetual student are, in that order, the teacher, the virtuous pupil and the spiritual brother and associate in holiness. vånaprasthayatibrahmacåriñå∫ rikthabhåginaΔ Ù krameñåcåryasacchißyadharmabhråtrekatœrthinaΔ ÙÙ (YDh 2.137) On the time for partition see Vij∞ane†vara on YDh 2.115. naiva bhåga∫ vanasthånå∫ yatœnå∫ brahmacåriñåm Ù påßañ∂apatitånå∫ ca na cåvaidikakarmañåm ÙÙ V®ddha-Hårita-Sm®ti, 7 .259. 50 51

286

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Vij∞åne†vara, commenting on this passage, as well as the Sarasvatœvilåsa,52 Mådhava,53 the Vivådaratnåkara,54 the Vivådacintåmañi,55 the Vœramitrodaya,56 and the Madanapårijåta,57 interpret “in that order” (krameña) to mean “in the inverse order” (pratilomakrameña). Thus the heir of a hermit is his spiritual brother or associate in holiness, that of a renouncer is a virtuous pupil, and that of a student is the teacher. According to the Sm®ticandrikå,58 however, the teacher, the virtuous pupil, the spiritual brother, and the associate in holiness are all heirs of hermits, renouncers and perpetual students. The term “in order” (krameña) means that each succeeding one inherits only in the absence of the preceding. The interpretation of krameña to mean ”in the inverse order’ (pratilomakrameña) is farfetched. Kau™ilya also gives the same rule: Of forest hermits, renouncers, and students of the Veda, the inheritors of property are the teacher, pupil, the spiritual brother, and the fellow student, respectively (krameña). vånaprasthayatibrahmacåriñåm åcårya†ißyadharmabhråt®samånatœrthyå rikthabhåjaΔ krameña. (A‡ 3.16.37)

Even if Yåj∞avalkya used krameña to mean pratilomakrameña due to the exigencies of metre, Kau™ilya, writing in prose, had no such restriction. Moreover, Vißñu states explicitly that the property of a hermit is inherited by the teacher or the pupil.59 In Hindu law the heirs not only inherit the property of the deceased but also his debts. This principle remains valid also in the case of civil death resulting from renunciation. Vißñu is explicit on this point: when a debtor dies or renouces or is away in a distant land for twenty years his sons and grandsons should settle the debt.60 Kåtyåyana (575) states that the debts of persons who have gone on a long journey, or are without relatives, or have become idiots, mad, sick, or liõgins, should be taken over by those who have taken their wives or wealth. Liõgin means a person who has assumed the signs of an ascetic, i.e., staff, begging-bowl etc. The release from previous contractual obligations, especially from debts, resulting from renunciation must have tempted many. In 52 See A Complete Collection of Hindu Law Books on Inheritance, ed. S. S. Setlur (Madras 1911), I, pp. 185—186. 53 Pårå†aramådavœya: see ibid., I, p.134. 54 See ibid., II, p. 237. 55 See ibid., II, p. 269. 56 See ibid., II, p. 425. 57 See ibid., II, p. 533. 58 See ibid., I, p. 300. The same opinion is given as an alternative interpretation by Nandapañ∂ita on ViDh 17.15—16. 59 vånaprasthadhanam åcåryo g®hñœyåt, †ißyo vå. ViDh 17.15—16. 60 dhanagråhiñi prete pravrajite dvida†åΔ sa∫åΔ pravasite vå tatputrapautrair dhana∫ deyam. ViDh 6.27.

Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

287

most societies people who cannot meet their contractual obligations might resort to suicide. In India, however, renunciation was an alternative, which to many must have seemed clearly preferable to suicide. Some restrictions, therefore, on who could legitimately renounce were bound to come. The artha†åstra tradition was probably more concerned with the “secular” repercussions of renunciation. Thus we find this unique rule in Kau™ilya’s Artha†åstra: One who has lost his capacity for activity (luptavyåyåmaΔ) may go forth after securing permission from the judges (åp®cchya dharmasthån). Otherwise, he shall be put under restraint. luptavyåyåmaΔ pravrajed åp®cchya dharmasthån Ù anyathå niyamyeta Ù (A‡ 2.1.30—31)

The Mahåbhårata (12.63.15) records a provision according to which only Vai†yas are required to obtain the king’s permission before renouncing. To my knowledge, these passages are the only evidence we have of the requirement that a man should obtain permission from a civil authority before renouncing. Further, according to Kau™ilya, “if one renounces home without providing for his sons and wife, the lowest fine for violence shall be imposed” —putradåram apratividhåya pravrajataΔ pürvaΔ såhasadañ∂aΔ (Ň 2.1.29). These rules were no doubt formulated to prevent people from using renunciation as an easy way out of meeting their social obligations.61 Some civil laws affecting a renouncer are not directly based on his civil death. The most important of them prevents a renouncer from being called as a witness in a court of law. Proto-Baudhåyana (1.19.13) excludes a learned Brahmin (†rotriya), the king, and a renouncer from being a witness. Manu (8.65) includes liõgastha and one detached from pleasures (saõgebhyo vinirgataΔ) among those who cannot be called as witnesses. These terms are interpreted by all commentators as including the renouncer. According to Vißñu (8.2) also a renouncer cannot be a witness. Yåj∞avalkya (2.70), on the other hand, uses the word påkhañ∂in, which normally means a heretical renouncer. It is unclear whether he intended to include all renouncers under this term. Kau™ilya excludes those who are unfit for transactions from being witnesses (A‡ 3.11.28). We have already seen that according to him renouncers cannot conclude legal transactions (A‡ 3.1.12). Elsewhere, Kau™ilya asserts: “In the case of secret transactions, one woman or man who has heard or witnessed it may be cited as a witness, excepting the king and an ascetic (tåpasa)” —rahasyavyavahåreßv ekå strœ purußa upa†rotå vå såkßœ syåd råjatåpasavarjam (A‡ 3.11.31). Nårada (1.138—39) 61 In Buddhism detailed rules were formulated regarding those disqualified from entering the saõgha. Thieves, debtors and slaves were specifically barred from entry. See Mahåvagga, 1.39—76. Among others, robbers, slaves, servants and enemies of the king were forbidden to enter the Jaina order: see Deo 1956, 379.

288

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

gives five reasons for excluding people from being witnesses: (1) explicit statement in authoritative texts (vacanåt); (2) depravity (doßa); (3) contradiction (bheda); (4) voluntary deposition (svayamukti); (5) when the claimant is dead (m®tåntara). Then he states: Learned Brahmins, ascetics, old people, and men who have renounced cannot be witnesses, because it is so stated in authoritative texts; no reason is given for this. †rotriyås tåpaså v®ddhå ye ca pravrajitå naråΔ Ù asåkßiñas te vacanån nåtra hetur udåh®taΔ ÙÙ (NSm 1.140)

Thus, Nårada thinks that these people are excluded solely on scriptural authority and not because a rational explanation can be given for their exclusion. According to Kåtyåyana (115) and B®haspati (10.79) renouncers are also barred from being sureties. As Sternbach has suggested,62 this may be due to the fact that renouncers, possessing no property or wealth, were unsuitable for becoming sureties. Further, their itinerant lifestyle would make it difficult to track them down. In contrast to renouncers, we find that hermits who lived in forest hermitages practising mortifications were used as sureties for pacts between kings. Thus, Kau™ilya says: “He (the king) should win over a greedy or weakened king with gifts after making an ascetic (tapasvin) or a chief [or a prominent ascetic] stand surety” —lubdha∫ kßœña∫ vå tapasvimukhyåvasthåpanåpürva∫ dånena sådhayet (A‡ 9.6.23). An ascetic may have been considered a suitable surety in those cases which did not involve monetary transactions, because one who broke the pact would have to contend with the wrath of the ascetic surety, something much feared in ancient India. Nårada63 states that ascetics (tapasvin), among others, should not be made to undergo an ordeal. It is unclear whether the term tapasvin is used by Nårada in a restricted sense to indicate only forest hermits or in a broader sense to include all “holy men”. Kåtyåyana (428), however, is more explicit. He excludes a liõgin from ordeals. This term generally includes the renouncer. Kau™ilya (A‡ 4.8.19—20) also prescribes the use of secret agents to determine the truth when ascetics (tapasvin) are involved in a dispute, in place of ordeals. Renouncers were also exempt from fines, possibly because, at least theoretically, they did not possess money. An interesting substitute is recommended by Kau™ilya (A‡ 3.16.38). Hermits, renouncers and Vedic students who are convicted of an offence should engage in religious exercises, such as fasting, bathing and worshipping the sacred fire, for as many nights as the number of pañas prescribed as 62 63

L. Sternbach, Juridical Studies (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965), I, p. 177. NSm 1.256 in Jolly. This verse has been put in Appendix C in Lariviere’s edition.

Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

289

the fine. The merit accrued therefrom is transferred to the king. Heretical ascetics (påßañ∂a) also are required to do penances and vows according to their own religious practices in place of the fine (A‡ 3.16.40). Elsewhere, however, Kau™ilya prescribes for a mendicant (bhikßuka) as may lashes with a whip as the number of pañas fined (A‡ 4.1.63). It is unclear, however, whether bhikßuka here means a religious mendicant or an ordinary beggar, who also would have no money to pay a fine. In general, judges are asked to show leniency towards ascetics (tapasvin) and leaders of renouncer sects (tœrthakara; A‡ 3.20.21). Kåtyåyana (KSm 953) also admonishes the king to give only oral reprimands (vågdañ∂a) to ascetics: he should say “fie” (dhik) to them. The renouncer was also an exception to the right of ownership through possession. Gautama states: When others make use of the property of a person who is neither mentally incapacitated nor a minor before his very eyes for ten years, it belongs to the user, unless the user is a vedic scholar, a wandering ascetic, or a royal officer. aja∂åpogañ∂adhana∫ da†avarßabhukta∫ paraiΔ sa∫nidhau bhoktuΔ Ù na †rotiyapra ÙÙ urajitaråjapurußaiΔ (GDh 12.37—38)

It is interesting that none of the later dharma†åstric writers exempt the renouncer.64 The probable reason is that such an exemption was superfluous, given the general rule against ownership of property by renouncers. His vow of poverty exempted the renouncer from both tolls and taxes. Tolls were normally collected at ferry crossings. Manu (8.407) exempts four categories of people from the toll: pregnant women, renouncers, munis (interpreted as hermits), and Vedic students. Vasiß™ha (19.23) also includes the renouncer among those exempt from ferry tolls. Kau™ilya (A‡ 2.28.18) similarly exempts Brahmins, renouncers, children, old and sick persons, carriers of royal edicts, and pregnant women, but specifies that they should carry with them a sealed pass. Vißñu (5.132) imposes a fine of ten pañas on a ferryman or a toll-collector who takes a toll from Vedic students, hermits, mendicants, pregnant women, and pilgrims. Åpastamba (2.26.14,17) exempts from general taxation ascetics (tapasvin) and those to whom the acquisition of property is forbidden, i.e., renouncers. Perhaps one of the most important provisions of Hindu law on renunciation concerns the position of a renouncer who returns to society, in other words an apostate from renunciation. Krishnan (1969) has ably shown that according to Hindu law it was not permissible for a renouncer to become a layman once again. Permissible or 64 The parallel passages in later dharma†åstras are: MDh 8.145—149; YDh 2.24; NSm 1.69—70; KSm 317—318.

290

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

not, many did leave renunciation and reentered society. That this was common is demonstrated by Kau™ilya, who enumerates apostate renouncers (udåsthita) and renouncers who aspire to gain an easier livelihood and are on the verge of apostasy (v®ttikåma) among those who should be used as spies (A‡ 1.11—12). It also shows their precarious situation, which made them easy targets for conscription into spy establishments. Becoming spies for the king was the only way out of the miserable condition awaiting them on reentering society. All dharma†åstric writers from Vißñu (5.152) onwards agree that an aposate renouncer (pratyavasita) becomes a slave of the king. Yåj∞avalkya (2.183) specifies that this slavery lasts until death. This position is reaffirmed by Nårada (5.33) and Kåtyåyana (731). Nårada (5.27—36) gives several means of freeing a slave. Only two types of slaves, an apostate renouncer and one who has sold himself, can never be freed by any means. Medieval commentators were involved in a dispute as to whether even a Brahmin who abandons renunciation should be made a slave. ‡ülapåñi, Aparårka, and Mitra Mi†ra, commenting on YDh 2.183, exclude a Brahmin from the provision that an apostate becomes a slave of the king. They base this interpretation on the well-known maxim that slavery is in the direct order of castes and not in the inverse order.65 Accordingly a ‡üdra can be a slave of a Vai†ya, Kßatriya or Brahmin; a Vai†ya of a Kßatriya or Brahmin; and a Kßatriya of a Brahmin; but a Brahmin can never be a slave. Kåtyåyana explicitly states that slavery is permissible only in the case of the last three varñas and not in the case of a Brahmin.66 Consequently, according to these commentators, a Brahmin apostate should be branded on the forehead with the mark of a dog’s foot and banished from the kingdom. Aparårka cites a passage of Kåtyåyana (721) in support of this view: “When persons belonging to the three twice-born varñas revert from renunciation, Brahmins should be banished, while Kßatriyas and Vai†yas should be made the king’s slaves.”67 Vij∞åne†vara and Vi†varüpa, however, disagree. They consider apostasy an exception to the general rule against reducing Brahmins to slavery. Nårada (5.37), in fact, excludes “those who abandon their proper dharma” (svadharmatyåginaΔ) from that general rule and Vij∞åne†vara interprets that term to mean an apostate from renunciation. Manu does not openly discuss apostasy. However, he includes “one enslaved by way of punishment” (dañ∂adåsa) among the seven types of slaves (MDh 8.415). This term is interpreted by Sarvaj∞anåråyaña and Nandana to mean an apostate who is enslaved as punishment. 65 varñånåm ånulomyena dåsya∫ na pratilomataΔ. YDh 1.183; KSm 716; varñånå∫ pråtilomyena na dåsatva∫ vidhœyate. NSm 5.37. 66 trißu varñeßu vij∞eya∫ dåsya∫ viprasya na kvacit. KSm 715. 67 pravrajyåvasitå yatra trayo varñå dvijåtayaΔ Ù nirvåsa∫ kårayed vipra∫ dåsatva∫ kßatraviñ n®paΔ ÙÙ KSm 721.

Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras

291

16.5. Conclusion The Oxford English Dictionary defines history as “A written narrative constituting a continuous methodical record, in order of time, of important or public events.” The chronology of ancient Indian literature is too uncertain to permit such a history of any ancient Indian institution. Historians of ancient India have to be content with drawing broad outlines of changes in social institutions and ideas that may have taken place over decades and centuries. The Dharma†åstras are a fruitful source for such an endeavour, especially because a trustworthy relative chronology of these works has been established. Even here, we do well to heed Lingat’s (1973, 183) caution: It would be hazardous to imagine social reality through their precepts or to take their precepts for rules of law in force in their times. One can only draw from a comparative examination of the texts indications about some currents of opinion amongs the writers, currents which plausibly reflect changes of ideas or of manners in the population. In default of a history of the ancient law, i.e., of society properly so called, one might perhaps attempt a history of social ideas, using the different and sometimes contradictory views which we recognize when we compare the dharma-†åstras with each other. But the grave uncertainty of the chronology and the huge gaps in our knowledge about the dharma†åstra literature leaves hardly any solid ground for such an enterprise.

In scholarship, as in other areas, caution from time to time must give way to adventure and risks must be taken if stagnation is to be avoided. Errors committed in such risky endeavours may help to further knowledge more than the safety of overcaution. The present paper, in attempting to trace at least a partial history of renunciation and its interrelationship with social institutions and ritual Bråhmañism by an analysis of the dharma†åstric evidence, has taken such a risk. I hope it has not turned out to be rash.68

68 The present paper was written in 1977 and, therefore, I was not able to use the excellent work of Sprockhoff (1976), which came to my notice after this paper was completed. Since that time much more nuanced work on the history of Dharma†åstra has been done, and I refer the readers to those works for more up-to-date accounts: Lariviere 2004, Wezler 2004, Olivelle 2000, 2004b, 2005a, 2006a.

17. King and Ascetic : State Control of Asceticism in the Artha†åstra*

The Hindu enters this world as a stranger; all his thoughts are directed to another world; he takes no part even when he is driven to act; and when he sacrifices his life, it is but to be delivered from it.1

These words of Max Mller reflect a common view held by an earlier generation of scholars. Today few, if any, would concur with this evaluation of Hinduism as a totally world-renouncing and life-negating ideology. The discovery of a wide range of “this-worldly” literature, most prominent being the Artha†åstra, has acted as a corrective to the simplistic assumptions of the past regarding the general Indian attitude to life. Similar views continue to persist, however, with regard to ascetics and ascetic institutions of India. The idealistic view of ascetics living in total seclusion, separated from the day-to-day life of people and society and unconcerned with the affairs of the world, is supported by the normative literature and by the mythic depiction of ascetics and ascetic communities in the epics and the belles-lettres. Recent studies have begun to question the historicity of this widespread assumption.2 Ascetics and ascetic organizations played as significant a role in ancient and medieval Indian society as monks and monasteries did in medieval Europe; and in India, as in Europe, the state tried its best to control and to use for its own ends the power and influence of ascetics and ascetic orders. *Originally published in Festschrift Ludo Rocher, Adyar Library Bulletin 50 (1987): 39—59. 1 Mller 1859, 18. Cited in Trautmann 1971, 2. 2 See the many studies of Gregory Schopen collected in Schopen 1997, 2005; Olivelle 1990; Das 1982; Thapar 1978. The information provided by Sanskrit dramas also indicates that ascetics played a variety of significant social roles.

294

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

17.1. The clearest evidence of the state control of ascetics in India is found in the Artha†åstra.3 The very nature of the state as envisioned by Kau™ilya makes such control imperative; the control of all aspects of society was basic to Kau™ilya’s strategy for safeguarding and furthering the power of the king both within his kingdom and beyond. The extensive use of spies and secret agents for gathering information, for broadcasting disinformation, for sowing dissension, and even for assassinating internal and external enemies, indicates the sophisticated tyranny advocated by Kau™ilya. Within this context it is not surprising that as significant and as ubiquitous a group of people as ascetics would be a target of state interest and control. The very nature of ascetic organizations and ascetic life styles may have made them a special target of such control. As far as we know, ascetic orders and monastic establishments were the only voluntary organizations in ancient and medieval India. They were, moreover, based on religious ideologies that often had powerful social and political implications. Many of them were rich and powerful, claiming the allegiance of numerous lay followers. An even more significant factor was the life style of Indian ascetics; by and large they led an itinerant life, and they were usually assured unrestricted travel within and between states.4 Their control was thus at once more difficult and more important for the state. To my knowledge the Artha†åstra is one of the only two ancient Indian documents5 that require government permission for entry into ascetic orders. luptavyåyåmaΔ pravrajed åp®cchya dharmasthån Ù anyathå niyamyeta Ù One who has lost his capacity for work may leave home and become an ascetic after securing permission from the judges. Otherwise, he shall be put under restraint. (A‡ 2.1.30—31)6 3 I will not enter into the long and thus far fruitless debate regarding the date and authorship of the Artha†åstra. The statistical evidence produced by Trautmann (1971) strongly suggests that the work has several layers and, therefore, was composed over a relatively long period of time. The absence of the term sa∫nyåsa and the ignorance of the classical theory of å†rama suggest a date somewhat earlier than Manu (see Olivelle 1981, 2005a). Whatever its precise date, the evidence of the Artha†åstra gives us a broad picture of ascetics within ancient Indian society. Although it is a †åstra and therefore a theoretical work, it reflects to a greater degree than the dharma literature actual social practices. The practical nature of the work makes it “a rich store of information on numerous aspects of ancient Indian life” (Trautmann 1971, 3). On the practical and realistic nature of the Artha†åstra, see also Kangle 1960—1965, III: 13—14. 4 The Artha†åstra itself presumes this free access when it advocates the use of the ascetic disguise for various purposes such as escaping from an enemy territory: A‡ 1.18.12; 7.17.50; 12.5.38; 13.3.44. 5 The other is the MBh 12.63.11—15. 6 Unless otherwise noted, the translations of the A‡ are taken from Kangle 1960—65, sometimes with modifications.

King and Ascetic

295

This extraordinary rule, however, is made within the context of settling and developing the countryside, which is the theme of this chapter. Anything that hindered this goal was forbidden. Thus, for example, Kau™ilya excludes actors, dancers, singers, musicians, minstrels, and the like from the countryside, and forbids the creation of parks and recreation halls (see A‡ 2.1.33—34). It is also within this context that he forbids all ascetic orders apart from forest hermits (vånaprastha); this prohibition affects only the countryside, for the Artha†åstra clearly admits all sorts of ascetics within a kingdom.7 Kau™ilya seems to believe that the presence of such itinerant beggars and entertainers would distract the country workers. In recently conquered or settled land such people may also have posed a security risk. The reference to “one who has lost his capacity for work,” in all probability an old person, as the candidate to whom permission may be granted to renounce, also fits the work ethic advocated for country folks by Kau™ilya. The king, moreover, was obliged to maintain orphans, old people, and other helpless persons (A‡ 2.1.26). It was clearly in his interest, therefore, to see that husbands and fathers did not renege on their duties toward their families: apatyadåra∫ måtåpitarau bhråt≤n apråptavyavahårån bhaginœΔ kanyå vidhavå† cåbibhrataΔ †aktimato dvåda†apaño dañ∂aΔ Ù If a person with means does not maintain his children and wife, his father and mother, his brothers who have not come of age, and his unmarried and widowed sisters, a fine of twelve pañas shall be imposed. (A‡ 2.1.28)

In the very next sentence Kau™ilya addresses the question of renunciation: putradåram apratividhåya pravrajataΔ pürvaΔ såhasadañ∂aΔ, striya∫ ca pravråjayataΔ Ù If one leaves home and becomes an ascetic without providing for his sons and wife, the lowest fine for violence8 (shall be imposed); also if one induces a woman to renounce her home. (A‡ 2.1.29) 7 Kangle (1960—65) is wrong to conclude that “this would exclude all heretical sects from the land” (note on 2.1.32). The rule is restricted to the countryside. Kangle (1960— 65, III: 154) misses this point when he says: “This does not seem to apply to the parivråjakas of the Brahmanical order, for these as a rule do not settle down anywhere for long. Apparently the prohibition applies to monks of other orders and it may be that the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent the spread of heretical sects.” Heretical as well as Brahmanical renouncers are excluded only from the countryside. Hermits were permitted there possibly because they lived in settled communities far from villages and had little contact with the rural population. 8 The Artha†åstra (3.17.8—10) gives a range from 48 to 96 pañas for the lowest fine, 200 to 500 for the middle, and 500 to 1000 for the highest. The MDh (8.138) gives 250 pañas, 500, and 1000, while the YDh (1.366) gives 1080 as the highest, the middle being half of that, and the lowest half of the middle.

296

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

It is unclear whether all categories of people required state permission to renounce, and whether this provision was applicable throughout the kingdom. The evidence from the Mahåbhårata suggests that only Vai†yas and ‡üdras were affected by this rule; it requires people belonging only to these two classes to obtain the king’s permission (abhyanuj∞åpya råjånam; anuj∞åto n®peña: (Mbh 12.63.12, 15). They were the backbone of a rural economy, and it was important to the state that they continue to function within the economy. The Mahåbhårata text also confirms the Artha†åstra provision that the king’s permission was given only to old people; they were of no use to the economy and were ready for retirement. Unlike the Artha†åstra, however, the Mahåbhårata does not restrict this rule to the countryside. Ascetics were generally vagrants and thus made ideal spies. Kings tried their best to use them as spies, but were at the same time afraid that the ascetics roving their kingdoms might in fact be agents of foreign powers. This fear is evident in several provisions of the Artha†åstra. Ascetics were to be removed from a road that the king was travelling along (A‡ 1.21.26). The king should grant an audience to an ascetic only in the company of trusted armed guards (A‡ 1.21.24). The queen was also forbidden contact with ascetics, although an added reason for this prohibition may have been the notoriety of ascetics as go-betweens for lovers (A‡ 1.20.18). Understandably, the Artha†åstra shows special concern regarding the effective control of the movement of ascetics into and within the kingdom. The points of entry into a kingdom were supervised by the controller of shipping, probably because its borders often coincided with natural boundaries such as rivers. The Artha†åstra (2.28.19) indicates that for the most part people crossed the borders in caravans; it would have been extremely dangerous to travel through jungle paths alone. People in the caravan had to obtain permission to cross. It is likely that ascetics crossing the borders were subjected to special scrutiny. Among those to be arrested at the border by the controller, for example, were ascetics with new emblems or without emblems (sadyog®hœtaliõginam aliõgina∫ vå pravrajitam: A‡ 2.28.20). The emblems of a renouncer consisted of a shaven head and articles such as an ochre dress, a staff, a water pot, and a begging bowl. New emblems were a sign that the man might be an enemy agent who had recently donned an ascetic’s garb. The term aliõgin probably refers to someone “without all the proper emblems” rather than “without emblems,” for in the latter case the man would not be recognized as an ascetic at all. The lack of some required emblems was another clue that the man was a fake ascetic. A close watch was kept over the movements of ascetics in cities. Agents patrolled the cities and their vicinity, and they routinely searched public houses including the residences of ascetic sects, arresting all suspicious people:

King and Ascetic

297

pathikotpathikå† ca bahir anta† ca nagarasya devag®hapuñyasthånavana†ma†åneßu savrañam aniß™opakarañam udbhåñ∂œk®tam åvignam atisvapnam adhvaklåntam apürva∫ vå g®hñœyuΔ Ù evam abhyantare †ünyanive†åve†ana†auñ∂ikaudanikapåkvamå∫sikadyütapåßañ∂åvåseßu nicaya∫ kuryuΔ Ù And agents operating along roads and away from roads should arrest outside the city and inside, in temples, holy places, forests, and cremation grounds, a person with a wound, one with harmful tools, one hiding behind a heavy load, one agitated, one in a long sleep, one tired after a journey, or a stranger. Similarly, inside the city, they should make a search in deserted places, work-shops, ale-houses, cooked-rice houses, cooked-meat houses, gambling dens, and houses of heretical sects. (A‡ 2.36.13—14)

Kau™ilya appears to advocate a general night curfew in cities.9 On some nights, probably during religious festivals, people were allowed to move about freely.10 Wandering ascetics, however, were among those forbidden to travel at night even when the curfew is lifted: cåraråtrißu pracchannaviparœtaveßåΔ pravrajitå dañ∂a†astrahastå† ca manußyå doßavato dañ∂yåΔ Ù During nights of unrestricted movements, those dressed in a disguise or wearing a dress contrary to their sex, wandering ascetics, and people carrying sticks and weapons, shall be punished in accordance with their offense. (A‡ 2.36.39)

Kau™ilya was clearly more suspicious of non-Brahmanical ascetics. Thus he instructs the officers in charge of charitable lodges to inform the section officer when they give lodging to heretical ascetics, while in the case of Brahmins they need only be satisfied that they are bona fide ascetics (see A‡ 2.36.5). The very institution of such officers, moreover, represented an effort by the state to control the movement of itinerant ascetics within cities. Kau™ilya, as we shall see, also instructs the king to infiltrate the monasteries with ascetics-turned-spies, thus keeping himself informed about the goings-on in these establishments. The Artha†åstra explicitly states that the king should keep a vigilant eye on the activities of ascetics:11 pravrajyåsu v®thåcårån råjå dañ∂ena vårayet Ù dharmo hy adharmopahataΔ †åståra∫ hanty upekßitaΔ ÙÙ The king shall use force to prevent deviant behaviour in ascetic orders, for if the king remains indifferent when dharma is overwhelmed by adharma, it will destroy him. (A‡ 3.16.42) See A‡ 2.36.34—38. See also Kangle 1960—65, III: 160. Such nights are called kßemaråtri or cåraråtri. See A‡ 2.36.12, 39. 11 Protection and control of ascetics, of course, is part of a king’s duty to govern the varñas and å†ramas. A‡ 1.4.16; 3.1.38; 15.1.9. 9

10

298

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

He should make sure that ascetics keep to the path of dharma, which for Kau™ilya surely included full allegiance to and support of the ruling power. The king is also responsible for settling disputes involving ascetics and monasteries: upasthånagataΔ kåryårthinåm advåråsaõga∫ kårayet Ù . . . tasmåd devatå†ramapåßañ∂a†rotriyapa†upuñyasthånånå∫ . . . kåryåñi pa†yet Ù Arriving in the assembly hall, he should allow unrestricted entrance to those wishing to see him in connection with their affairs. . . . Therefore, he should look into the affairs of temple deities, hermitages, heretics, Brahmins learned in the Vedas, cattle and holy places. . . . (A‡ 1.19.26, 29)

Their affairs fall squarely within the laws and jurisdiction of the state. Although they were under state control, ascetics enjoyed privileges. When they were found guilty of a crime they were not subject to the corresponding fine; instead they were required to perform religious acts on behalf of the king (A‡ 3.16.38—41).12 They were not to be tortured during interrogations (A‡ 4.8.19—20),13 and judges were expected to show leniency toward them (A‡ 3.20.21). Wandering ascetics could obtain a pass from the Controller of Shipping that allowed them to cross rivers without paying the usual fee (A‡ 2.28.18).14 A few privileges were reserved for Brahmanical hermits (vånaprastha or tapasvin). Land grants were made to them in newly settled countryside (A‡ 2.2.2). They were also exempt from the salt tax, which must have been a source of considerable revenue to the state (A‡ 2.12.28—33). The property of tapasvins could not be taken as booty when an enemy’s land was conquered (A‡ 3.16.28). 17.2. Ascetics and monasteries no doubt posed a danger to the established authority; yet, if properly used, they could become powerful instruments of the state both to guarantee internal security and to further its expansionist ambitions. The Artha†åstra gives us clear examples of how religion and religious people could be and probably were used by the state for its own ends. The most widespread and significant use of ascetics was made by what today would be called the state secret service. The use of spies and secret agents for domestic security and for foreign conquest was a hallmark of the Kau™ilyan state. Ascetics made ideal spies. There were two types of spies: some conducted their activities from a permanent location (sa∫sthå), which served as a nerve center See KSm 953. See NSm 1.256 (in Appendix C in Lariviere’s edition); KSm 428. 14 See MDh 8.407; VaDh 19.23; ViDh 5.132; ÅpDh 2.26.14, 17. 12 13

King and Ascetic

299

for clandestine operations, while others were roving spies who reported periodically to their superiors.15 Among the five types of people16 founding spy establishments were apostate renouncers (udåsthita) and fake hermits (tåpasavya∞jana). The secret service recruited fallen renouncers; they were indeed quite vulnerable, for in the eyes of the law they were outcastes and slaves of the king.17 Joining the secret service would have seemed an attractive alternative. The spy establishments of such renouncers were located in the countryside (A‡ 1.12.22): pravrajyåpratyavasitaΔ praj∞å†aucayukta udåsthitaΔ Ù sa vårttåkarmapradiß™åyå∫ bhümau prabhütahirañyåntevåsœ karma kårayet Ù karmaphalåc ca sarvapravrajitånå∫ gråsåcchådanåvasathån pratividadhyåt Ù v®ttikåmå∫† copajapet “etenaiva veßeña råjårtha† caritavyo bhaktavetanakåle copasthåtavyam” iti Ù sarvapravrajitå† ca sva∫ sva∫ vargam evam upajapeyuΔ Ù One who has given up the life of a wandering ascetic and is endowed with intelligence and honesty is the apostate renouncer. Equipped with plenty of money and assistants, he should carry on his occupation at a spot assigned for that purpose. From its profits he should provide food, clothing, and lodging for wandering ascetics. He should secretly propose to those ascetics who seek a livelihood: “In this very garb you should work in the interest of the king and present yourself here at the time of meals and payment.” All wandering ascetics should make similar secret proposals to ascetics in their respective orders. (A‡ 1.11.4—8)

These establishments managed by former ascetics, therefore, recruited and directed the spying activities of other ascetics. They would have been the prime source of information on the activities of monastic establishments. The spy establishments of fake ascetics were located near cities (A‡ 1.12.22). They were probably organized as å†ramas, with disciples helping to spread the news about the holiness and the yogic powers of their masters: muñ∂o ja™ilo vå v®ttikåmas tåpasavya∞janaΔ Ù sa nagaråbhyå†e prabhütamuñ∂aja™ilåntevåsœ †åka∫ yavamuß™i∫ vå måsadvimåsåntara∫ prakå†am a†nœyåt, gü∂ham iß™am åhåram Ù vaidehakåntevåsina† caina∫ samiddhayogair arcayeyuΔ Ù †ißyå† cåsyåvedayeyuΔ “asau siddhaΔ såmedhikaΔ” iti Ù samedhå†åstibhi† cåbhigatånåm aõgavidyayå †ißyasa∫j∞åbhi† ca karmåñy abhijane ’vasitåny ådi†et: alpalåbham agnidåha∫ corabhaya∫ düßyavadha∫ tuß™idåna∫ vide†aprav™ttij∞ånam “idam adya †vo vå bhavißyati, ida∫ vå råjå karißyati” iti Ù tad asya gü∂håΔ sattriña† ca sa∫pådayeyuΔ Ù sattvapraj∞åvåkya†aktisa∫pannånå∫ råjabhågyam anuvyåharet, mantrisa∫yoga∫ ca brüyåt Ù mantrœ caißå∫ v®ttikarmabhyå∫ viyateta Ù 15

See Kangle 1960—65, I: 205—206. See A‡ 1.11.1. The five types seem to have been a well-established tradition. MDh 7.154 refers to a pa∞cavarga (group of five), which is interpreted by most commentators as referring to the five types of spies described by Kau™ilya, namely, sharp pupil, apostate renouncer, fake householder, fake trader, and fake ascetic. 17 See ViDh 5.152; YDh 2.183; Olivelle 1984, 149—150; see above pp. 289—290. 16

300

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

A hermit with shaven head or with matted hair who seeks a permanent livelihood is a fake hermit. Living in the vicinity of a city and attended by plenty of disciples with shaven heads or with matted hair, he should eat openly a little vegetable or handful of barley at intervals of a month or two, but secretly eat what he wants. Assistants of traders (who are secret agents) should adore him as a man possessing miraculous powers. And his disciples should announce: “This holy man is able to secure prosperity (for anyone).” To those who have approached him with hopes of securing prosperity, he should specify events happening in their family which are ascertained by means of the science of (interpreting the touch of) the body and with the help of signs made by his disciples, events such as a small gain, burning by fire, danger from thieves, the killing of a treacherous person, a gift of gratification, news about happenings in a foreign land, saying: “This will happen today or tomorrow,” or “The king will do this.” Secret servants and agents should cause that prophecy of his to be fulfilled. To those who are richly endowed with spirit, intelligence, and eloquence, he should predict good fortune at the hands of the king and speak of their imminent association with the minister. And the minister should arrange for their livelihood and work. (A‡ 1.11.13—20)

This passage makes it abundantly clear that Kau™ilya was a very pragmatic strategist who had a very realistic view of miracles and who used the credulity of the people to his advantage. The asceticspy’s fame as a wonder worker facilitated his work of agent provocateur and assassin. The list of roving spies includes female ascetics (bhikßukœ or parivråjikå) who were recruited from Brahmanical orders18 and from heretical sects (A‡ 1.12.4—5). Those in charge of spy establishments, including fallen renouncers and hermits, received a wage of one thousand paña-s, whereas the roving spies, including female ascetics, received half that amount.19 Ascetic spies were used internally for three purposes: to gather intelligence, to test the loyalty and honesty of public servants, and to eliminate unwanted elements of society. ye cåsya dhånypa†uhirañyåny åjœvanti, tair upakurvanti vyasane ’bhyudaye vå, kupita∫ bandhu∫ råß™ra∫ vå vyåvartayanti, amitram å™avika∫ vå pratißedhayanti, teßå∫ muñ∂aja™ilavya∞janås tuß™åtuß™atva∫ vidyuΔ Ù And spies appearing as hermits with shaven heads or with matted hair should ascertain the contentedness or the discontentedness of those 18 Contrary to the theoretical prohibition of female asceticism encountered in the Dharma†åstric literature, the Artha†åstra provides clear evidence that in fact female ascetical orders existed both in heretical sects and within Bråhmañism. See Olivelle 1984, 114— 115; above pp. 278—279. 19 See A‡ 15.3.22—23. It is unclear whether this is a monthly or a yearly salary. Kangle (1960—65, note to 5.3.3.) takes paña as a silver coin and, therefore, thinks that it is a yearly salary. N. N. Law (Indian Historical Quarterly, V, p. 780 f., cited by Kangle) considers it a monthly salary, probably taking it to be a copper coin. Trautmann, however, has demonstrated that a paña is a silver coin in book 2 of the Artha†åstra, whereas it is a copper coin in book 3, to which stratum Book 5 also belongs. It is, therefore, more likely that the amount indicates a monthly salary.

King and Ascetic

301

who live on his [the king’s] grain, cattle or money, who help him with these in calamity or prospetity, who restrain a rebellious kinsman or region, or who repel an enemy or a forest chieftan. (A‡ 1.13.15)

Female ascetics were used as intermediaries between roving spies and spy establishments; they collected the information gathered by the former and communicated it to the latter, thereby protecting the identities of those higher up in the intelligence hierarchy (A‡ 1.12.10, 12). Testing the loyalty of officers including ministers, however, seems to have been a more central duty of ascetic spies. Ministers’ lust was tested by female ascetics: parivråjikå labdhavi†våsåntaΔpure k®tasatkårå mahåmåtram ekaikam upajapet: “råjamahißœ två∫ kåmayate k®tasamågamopåyå, mahån artha† ca te bhavißyati” iti Ù pratyåkhyåne †uciΔ Ù A wandering nun who has won the confidence (of the ministers) and who is treated with honor in the palace should secretly suggest to each minister individually: ‘The chief queen is in love with you and has made arrangements for meeting with you. Besides, you will obtain much wealth.” If he repulses the proposal, he is pure. (A‡ 1.10.7—8)

Ascetics also were used to test the honesty of lower officials and businessmen: eva∫ samåhart®pradiß™ås tåpasavya∞janåΔ karßakagorakßakavaidehakånåm adhyakßåñå∫ ca †aucå†auca∫ vidyuΔ Ù In the same manner agents in the guise of hermits and directed by the Administrator should ascertain the honesty or dishonesty of farmers, cowherds, and traders, and of the departmental heads. (A‡ 2.35.13)

Ascetics were used to assassinate internal opponents who were too powerful to be openly dealt with by the king. Thus high officials suspected of treason are eliminated by ascetic spies: bhikßukœ vå düßyabhåryå∫ så∫vadanikœbhir außadhœbhiΔ sa∫våsya rasenåtisa∫dadhyåt Ù Or a female mendicant should win the confidence of the treacherous officer’s wife by providing love potions. She should then cheat her by substituting poison. (A‡ 5.1.19) bhikßukœ vå düßyaråß™ramukhya∫ “düßyaråß™ramukhyasya bhåryå snußå duhitå vå kåmayate” ity upajapet Ù pratipannasyåbharañam ådåya svåmine dar†ayet “asau te mukhyo yauvanotsikto bhåryå∫ snußå∫ duhitara∫ våbhimanyate” iti Ù tayoΔ kalaho råtrau iti samånam Ù Or a female mendicant should suggest to a treacherous chief in the country: “The wife or the daughter-in-law or the daughter of a chief in

302

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

the country is in love with you.” When he consents, she should take his ornaments and show them to the master,20 saying: “That chief puffed up with youth has designs on your wife or daughter-in-law or daughter.” In the ensuing quarrel between the two at night [or during the day, assassins or agents appearing as highway robbers should kill him, announcing, “He was killed during the attack”]. (A‡ 5.1.50—52)

The religious credulity of officers targeted for assassination offered unparalleled opportunities for ascetic spies: abhicåra†œla∫ vå siddhavya∞jano “godhåkürmakarka™akakü™ånå∫ lakßañyånåm anyatamaprå†anena manorathån avåpsyasi” iti gråhayet Ù pratipanna∫ karmañi rasena lohamusalair vå ghåtayet “karmavyåpadå hataΔ” iti Ù Or an agent appearing as a holy man should make the officer, if he is given to black magic, believe: “You will attain your desires by eating one of the following: a lizard, a tortoise, a crab, or an ox with broken horns, which is endowed with auspicious marks.” When he agrees, he should get him killed in the course of the rite by poison or iron clubs, and announce that he was killed by a mishap in the rite. (A‡ 5.1.33—34)

Spies appearing as ascetics with miraculous powers were also used for what would be called “sting operations” today. They won the confidence of criminals by providing them with charms that made them invisible, opened locked doors, and induced sleep in their victims. The intelligence service in the mean time alerted villagers and guards to act in such a way that the robbers would believe that their charms were effective. The goods they stole were marked, and they were later arrested either during a robbery or when they attempted to sell the stolen goods.21 Ascetic spies and agents disguised as ascetics were used to infiltrate the country and the fortified towns of an enemy king (A‡ 13.3.44). Their main duty was to gather intelligence: k®tyapakßopajåpam ak®tyapakße gü∂haprañidhåna∫ rågåparågau bhartari randhra∫ ca prak®tœnå∫ tåpasavaidehakavya∞janåbhyåm upalabheta, tayor antevåsibhi† cikitsakapåßañ∂avya∞janobhayavetanair vå Ù He [the king] should find out about the instigation of seducible parties, the employment of secret agents against non-seducible parties, the loyalty or disaffection (of the enemy’s subjects) towards their master, and the weak points in the constituent elements (of the enemy’s realm), through spies appearing as hermits or traders, or through their disciples or assistants, or through agents in the pay of both [i.e., double agents] appearing as physicians or heretical ascetics. (A‡ 1.16.24)

20

That is, the husband, father-in-law, or father of the woman in question.

21 See A‡ 4.5.1—11. The religious credulity of robbers operating in the forests is similar-

ly used to destroy them: see A‡ 13.4.54—55.

King and Ascetic

303

Foreign agents in the guise of ascetics and holy men were also used to sow dissension and to incite insurrections in the enemy’s realm (see A‡ 1.14.6). Kau™ilya has no qualms about advocating ruthless ways to sow dissension among the chiefs of an enemy republic: sattrœ vå strœlolupa∫ sa∫ghamukhya∫ prarüpayet “amußmin gråme daridrakulam apas®tam, tasya strœ råjårhå, g®håñainåm” iti Ù g®hœtåyåm ardhamåsånantara∫ siddhavya∞jano düßyasa∫ghamukhyamadhye prako†et “asau me mukhyo bhåryå∫ snußå∫ bhaginœ∫ duhitara∫ vådhicarati” iti Ù ta∫ cet sa∫gho nig®hñœyåt, råjainam upag®hya viguñeßu vikramayet Ù anig®hœte siddhavya∞jana∫ råtrau tœkßñåΔ pravåsayeyuΔ Ù tatas tadvya∞janåΔ prakro†eyuΔ “asau brahmahå bråhmañœjåra† ca” iti Ù A secret agent should describe to a chief of an oligarchy who is fond of women: “In such and such a village, the family of a poor man has migrated. His wife is fit for a king. Seize her.” Two weeks after she is seized, an agent appearing as a holy man should cry out in the midst of the chiefs of the treasonable oligarch: “That chief has violated my wife or daughter-in-law or sister or daughter.” If the ruling council chastises him, the king should support him and make him fight against those hostile to him. If he is not punished, assassins should slay at night the agent appearing as a holy man. Then others appearing in the same disguise should cry out: “So and so is a Brahmin-slayer and the paramour of a Brahmin’s wife.” (A‡ 11.1.44—48)

Wives were used as bait to foment enmity between chiefs of a rival kingdom. Female ascetics, the proverbial go-betweens, were the ideal agents for this purpose. bhikßukœ vå priyabhårya∫ mukhya∫ brüyåt “asau te mukhyo yauvanotsikto bhåryåyå∫ må∫ pråhiñot, tasyåha∫ bhayål lekhyam åbharaña∫ g®hœtvågatåsmi, nirdoßå te bhåryå, gü∂ham asmin pratikartavyam . . .” iti Ù A female mendicant should say to a chief fond of his wife: ““Such and such a chief, conceited by reason of youth, sent me to your wife. Through fear of him I have brought a letter and ornaments from him. Your wife is innocent. Steps against him should be taken secretly.” (A‡ 11.1.52)

Female ascetics were also used to incite high officers of an enemy king to rise against him. One way was to convince a high officer that he was fit to replace the king; the task was made easy by the common belief in astrology and fortune-telling: kårtåntikavya∞jano vå mahåmåtra∫ “råjalakßañasa∫panna∫” kramåbhinœta∫ brüyåt Ù bhåryåm asya bhikßukœ “råjapatnœ råjaprasavinœ vå bhavißyati” iti Ù An agent appearing as an astrologer should declare to a high officer whose confidence has been gradually won that he is possessed of the marks of a king. A female mendicant should declare to his wife: “You will be the wife of a king or the mother of a king.” (A‡ 12.2.19—20)

304

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Ascetic agents were also used to assassinate prominent people of an enemy’s country and sometimes even an enemy king himself. The belief in the miraculous powers possessed by ascetics and holy men made their work easier. A love potion laced with poison was a favorite method used especially against high officers with lustful dispositions (see A‡ 11.1.40; 12.2.14). Since there were many women in a harem each vying for the king’s attention, it was easy to use them to get at the king himself. Kau™ilya shows considerable ingenuity in gaining a queen’s confidence through her maid: vaidehakavya∞jano vå råjamahißyåΔ subhagåyåΔ preßyåm åsannå∫ kåmanimittam arthenåbhiv®ßya parityajet Ù tasyaiva paricårakavya∞janopadiß™aΔ siddhavya∞janaΔ så∫vadanikœm außadhœ∫ dadyåt “vaidehaka†arœre ’vadhåtavyå” iti Ù siddhe subhagåyå apy ena∫ yogam upadi†et “råja†arœre ’vadhåtavy”” iti Ù tato rasenåtisa∫dadhyåt Ù An agent appearing as a trader should shower wealth on an intimate maid of the favorite queen (of the enemy) for the sake of love and then leave her. An agent appearing as a holy man, recommended by an agent appearing as an attendant of that same (trader), should give a love potion, saying: “This should be placed on the person of the trader.” When this has succeeded, he should recommend this remedy also to the favorite queen, saying: “This should be placed on the king’s person.” Then he should overreach her with poison. (A‡ 12.2.15—18)

The second chapter of the thirteenth book contains numerous ways for ascetic agents to assassinate a rival king (see A‡ 13.2.6—18). I will cite one only: An ascetic with shaven head or with matted hair and living in a mountain cave should declare that he is four hundred years old, and stay in the vicinity of the city accompanied by plenty of disciples with matted hair. His disciples, approaching with roots and fruits, should induce the ministers and the king to pay a visit to the holy master. When the king visits him he should speak of the identification marks of former kings and their countries, (adding): “Every time I complete one hundred years, I enter fire and become a child again. So here, in your presence, I shall enter fire for the fourth time. I am obliged to honor you. Choose three boons.” When the king agrees, he should say: “You should stay here with your sons and wife for seven nights, after arranging a festival with shows.” He should attack him while he is staying there. (A‡ 13.2.1—5)

An enemy king’s visits to holy men and places are also excellent opportunities for assassination: siddhapravrajitacaityastüpadaivatapratimånåm abhœkßñåbhigamaneßu vå bhümig®hasuruõgågü∂habhittipraviß™ås tœkßñåΔ param abhihanyuΔ Ù On the occasions of his [the enemy king’s] frequent visits to holy men, mendicants, sanctuaries, stüpas, and images of deities assassins concealed in underground chambers or passages or inside hollow walls should strike at the enemy. (A‡ 13.2.44)

King and Ascetic

305

The use of ascetics for intelligence and undercover operations shows both the ruthlessness of Kau™ilya’s program and his cynical attitude toward religious institutions and supernatural claims. The state’s control and use of ascetic institutions recommended by Kau™ilya indicate that these institutions were significant elements of the social fabric of ancient India. A totally otherworldly institution would have scarcely attracted this type of state intervention. Their very renunciation of worldly concerns and the aura of holiness and supernatural powers made ascetics and ascetic institutions a powerful force within society. The state recognized their power and attempted to channel it to its own ends. The Artha†åstra provides clear evidence that asceticism influenced the social institutions and the religious beliefs of the people, while this very role it played in society shaped in turn the character of ascetic practices and institutions. Neither the Hindus nor the Hindu ascetics enter this world as strangers; all their thoughts are not directed at another world. Their desire to be delivered from sa∫såra, just as the Christian monks’ desire to leave this vale of tears, did not prevent them from engaging in the activities of this word. The study of Indian asceticism needs to take account of the ascetics’ function within the society as much as that of their flight from the society.

Bibliography

Agehananda Bharati. 1970. The Ochre Robe: An Autobiography. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Alsdorf, L. 1962. Beiträge zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung in Indien. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Apte, M. L. and J. Katona-Apte. 1981. “The Significance of Food in Religious Ideology and Ritual Behavior in Marathi Myths.” In Food in Perspective: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Ethnological Food Research, Cardif, Wales, 1977. Eds. A. and T. M. O. Fenton. Edinburg: J. Donald. A†vaghoßa, Buddhacarita. Tr. E. H. Johnston. Reprint of 1936. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978. Bachelard, G. 1964. The Poetics of Space. Tr. Maria Jolas. New York: The Orion Press. Baily, G. 1985. Materials for the Study of Ancient Indian Ideologies: prav®tti and niv®tti. Turin: CESMEO. Barua, M. B. 1921. A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Basham, A. L. 1951. History and Doctrines of the Åjœvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion. London: Luzac. Basu, Jogiraj 1969. India of the Age of the Bråhmañas. Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar. Basu, Jyotirmayee. 1964. “The Role of Asramas in the Life of Ancient Hindus.” Journal of Indian History 42: 847—76. Beck, E. F. Brenda. 1976. “The Symbolic Merger of Body, Space and Cosmos in Hindu Tamil Nadu.” Contributions to Indian Sociology (N.S.) 10.2: 213—33. Berg, C. 1951. The Unconscious Significance of Hair. London: George Allen & Unwin. Berger, P. L. 1969. The Sacred Canopy. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

308

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Bhandarkar, D. R. 1940. Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture. Sir William Meyer Lectures 1938—39. Madras: University of Madras. Bhattacharya, B. 1943. The ‘Kalivarjyas’ or Prohibitions in the ‘Kali’ Age. Caclutta: University of Calcutta. Biardeau, M. and Malamoud, C. 1976. Le sacrifice dans l’Inde ancienne. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Blair, J. C. 1961. Heat in the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda. American Oriental Series, 45. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Bloomfield, M. 1899. The Atharvaveda and the Gopatha Bråhmaña. Reprint. New Delhi: Asian Publication Service, 1978. Bodewitz, H. 1973. Jaiminœya Bråhmaña I, 1—65: Translation and Commentary with a Study Agnihotra and Pråñågnihotra. Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina, 17. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ______ 1980. Review of Wezler 1978. Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens, 24: 239—42 ______ 1999. “Hindu ahi∫så and its Roots.” In Violence Denied: Violence, Non-violence, and the Rationalization of Violence in South Asian Cultural History. Ed. Jan E. M. Houben and Karel R. Van Kooij, pp. 17—44. Leiden: Brill. Breckenridge, C. A. 1986. “Food, Politics and Pilgrimage in South India, 1350—1650.” In Food, Society and Culture: Aspects in South Asian Food Systems, eds. R. S. Khare and M. S. A. Rao, pp. 21—53. Durham N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. Bradford, N. J. 1985. “The Indian Renouncer: Structure and Transformation in the Lingayat Community.” In Indian Religion, ed. R. Burghart and A. Cantlie, pp. 79—104. London: Curzon. Bronkhorst, J. 1993. The Two Sources of Indian Asceticism. Schweizer Asiatische Studien, Monographien 13. Bern: Peter Lang. ______ 2001. “Asceticism, Religion and Biological Evolution.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 13: 374—418. Bhler, G. 1879—82 (tr.). Sacred Laws of the Åryas. 2 vols. Sacred Books of the East, 2, 14. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______ 1886 (tr.). The Laws of Manu. Sacred Books of the East, 25. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Buitenen, J. A. B. van. 1962. The Maitråyañœya Upanißad. Hague: Mouton. Caland, W. (ed.) 1927. Vaikhånasasmårtasütram. Bibliotheca Indica, 242. Calcutta: Asiatic Society. ______ (tr.) 1929. Vaikhånasasmårtasütram. Bibliotheca Indica, 242. Calcutta: Asiatic Society. Cantlie, A. 1977. “Aspects of Hindu Asceticism.” In Symbols and Sentiments, ed. J. Lewis, pp. 247—67. London: Academic Press. Cardona, G. 1976. Påñini: A Survey of Research. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Carman, J. B., and F. A. Marglin (eds). 1985. Purity and Auspiciousness in Indian Society. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Bibliography

309

Chakraborty, K. 1973. Asceticism in Ancient India in Brahmanical, Buddhist, Jaina and Ajivaka Societies. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak. Chanda, R. 1934. “‡ramañism.” Proceedings of the Twenty-first Indian Science Congress, Sec. VIII. Bombay. Cited from reprint in Indian Museum Bullentin, Jan.—July, 1977: 89—111. Chintamani Dikshit, T. R. 1929. The Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads with the Commentary of ‡rœ Upanißad-Brahmayogin. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre. Collins, S. 1982. Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravåda Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ______ 1993. “The Discourse on What Is Primary (Agga∞∞a-Sutta).” Journal of Indian Philosophy 21: 301—393. Cooper, W. 1971. Hair: Sex Society Symbolism. New York: Stein and Day. Daniels, E. V. 1984. Fluid Signs: Being a Person the Tamil Way. Berkeley: University of California Press. Das, V. 1982. Structure and Cognition: Aspects of Hindu Caste and Ritual. 2nd ed.; Bombay: Oxford University Press. Deo, S. B. 1956. History of Jaina Monachism from Inscriptions and Literature. Deccan College Dissertation Series, 17. Poona: Deccan College. Deshpande, M. 1985. “Historical Change and the Theology of Eternal Sanskrit.” Zeitschrift fr vergleichende Sprachforschung 98: 122—149. Derrett, J. D. M. 1968. Religion, Law and the State in India. London: Faber & Faber. ______ 1974. “Modes of Sannyåsœs and the Reform of a South Indian Ma™ha Carried out in 1584,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94: 65—72; reprinted in Essays in Modern Hindu Law (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), Vol. 1, pp. 111—119. Deussen, P. 1906. The Philosophy of the Upanishad. Tr. A. S. Geden. Reprint. New York: Dover, 1966. ______ 1909. “ņrama.” In Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings, II, pp. 128—131. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Dikshit, T. R. C. 1929. The Sa∫nyåsa Upanishad-s with Commentaries of ‡rœ Upanißad-Brahmayogin. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre. Divanji, P. C. 1927. “Madhusüdana Sarasvatœ: His Life and Works.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 8: 149—58. Douglas, M. 1984 (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: ARK Paperbacks. ______ 1982. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Pantheon Books. Dumont, L. 1960. “World Renunciation in Indian Religions.” Contributions to Indian Sociology 4: 33—62. Dundas, P. 1985. “Food and Freedom: The Jaina Sectarian Debate on the Nature of the Kevalin.” Religion 15: 161—97.

310

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Dutt, S. 1960 (1924). Early Buddhist Monachism. 2nd ed. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Edgerton, F. 1953. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press. Farquhar, J. N. 1920. An Outline of the Religious Literature of India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______ 1925. “The Organization of the Sannyasis of the Vedanta.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1925: 479—86. Firth, R. 1973. Symbols: Public and Private. London: George Allen & Unwin. Geldner, K. F. 1951—57. Der Rig Veda. 4 vols. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Gennep, A. van. 1960. The Rites of Passage. Tr. M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ghurye, G. S. 1964. Indian Sadhus. 2nd ed. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. Gombrich, R. 1988. Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ______ 1992. “The Buddha’s Book of Genesis.” Indo-Iranian Journal, 35: 159—78. Gonda, J. 1960—63. Die Religionen Indiens. 3 vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. ______ 1964—65. “A Note on the Vedic Student’s Staff.” Journal of the Oriental Institute (Baroda) 14: 262—272. ______ 1965. Change and Continuity in Indian Religions. Hague: Mouton. ______ 1980. Vedic Ritual: The Non-Solemn Rites. Leiden: Brill. Gopal, R. 1959. India of the Vedic Kalpasütras. Delhi: National Publishing House. Grnwedel, A. 1972. Buddhist Art in India. Reprint of 1901. Varanasi: Chand. Haberlandt, M. 1885. “Ueber den dritten åçrama der Inder.” Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 15: 10—12. Halbfass, W. 1980. “Karma, Apürva, and ‘Natural’ Causes: Observations on the Growth and Limits of the Theory of Sa∫såra.” In O’Flaherty 1980: 268—302. Hallpike, C. R. 1969. “Social Hair.” Man (N.S.) 4: 256—64. ______ 1987. “Hair.” The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. M. Eliade et al. New York: Macmillan. 6: 154—57. Harpham, G. 1987. The Ascetic Imperative in Culture and Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hauer, J. W. 1927. Der Vråtya. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Hawley, J. S. and J. Juergensmeyer. 1988. Songs of the Saints of India. New York: Oxford University Press. Heesterman, J. C. 1959. “Reflections on the Significance of Dakßiñå.” Indo-Iranian Journal 3: 241—58. ______ 1962. “Vråtya and Sacrifice.” Indo-Iranian Journal 6: 1-37.

Bibliography

311

______ 1964. “Brahmin, Ritual and Renouncer.” Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 8: 1-31. ______ 1982. “Householder and Wanderer.” In Way of Life: King, Householder, Renouncer: Essays in Honour of Louis Dumont, ed. T. N. Madan, pp. 251—271. Delhi: Vikas. ______ 1984. “Non-violence and Sacrifice.” Indologica Taurinensia 12: 119—127. Hershman, P. 1974. “Hair, Sex and Dirt.” Man (N.S.) 9: 274—98. Hiltebeitel, A. 2001. Rethinking the Mahåbhårata: A Reader’s Guide to the Education of the Dharma King. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ingalls, D. H. H. 1962. “Cynics and På†upatas: The Seeking of Dishonor.” Harvard Theological Review 55: 281—298. Jacobi, H. (tr.) 1884. Jaina Sütras. Sacred Books of the East, vol. 22. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaini, P. S. 1991. Gender and Salvation: Jaina Debates on the Spiritual Liberation of Women. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jamison, S. 1998. “Rhinoceros Toes: Manu 5.17—18 and the Development of the Dharma System.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 118: 249–56. Jœvanmuktiviveka of Vidyårañya. Ed. and tr. S. Subrahmanya Sastri and T. R. Srinivasa Ayyangar. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1978. Jones, J. J. (tr.). 1949. The Mahåvastu. London: Luzac. Kaelber, W. O. 1989. Tapta Mårga: Asceticism and Initiation in Vedic India. Albany: State University of New York Press. Kane, P. V. 1962—75. History of Dharma†åstra. I.1 (1968), 1.2 (2nd ed., 1975), II. 1—2 (2nd ed., 1974), III (1973), V.1 (1974), V.2 (1962). Kangle, R. P. 1960—65. (ed. and tr.) The Kau™ilya Artha†åstra. Three Parts. Bombay: University of Bombay. Keith, A. B. 1925. The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanißads. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Khare, R. S. 1976. Culture and Reality: Essays on the Hindu System of Managing Foods. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies. ______ (ed.) 1992. The Eternal Food: Gastronimic Ideas and Experiences of Hindus and Buddhists. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Khare, R. S. and M. S. A. Rao (eds.). 1986. Food, Society, and Culture. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Knipe, D. M. 1975. In the Image of Fire. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Krick, H. 1977. “Nåråyañabali und Opfertod.” Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 21: 71—142. Krishnan, Y. 1969. “Was it Permissible for a Sa∫nyåsœ (Monk) to Revert to Lay Life?” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 50: 73—89. Lariviere, R. W. (ed. and tr.) 1989. The Nåradasm®ti. Two Parts. Philadelphia: Department of South Asia Regional Studies.

312

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

______ 2004. “Dharma†åstra, Custom, ‘Real Law’ and ‘Apocryphal’ Sm®tis.” In Olivelle 2004b, pp. 611—27. Originally published in Recht, Staat und Verwaltung im klassischen Indien, ed. B. Kölver, pp. 97—110. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1997. Leach, E. R. 1958. “Magical Hair.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 88: 147—64. Levi, S. 1898. La doctrine du sacrifice dans les Bråhmañas. Paris: E. Leroux. Lincoln, B. 1977. “Treatment of Hair and Fingernails among the Indo-Europeans.” History of Religions 16: 351—62. Ling, T. 1976. Buddha. London: Penguin. Lingat, R. 1973. The Classical Law of India. Tr. J. D. M. Derrett. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lorenzen, D. 1972. The Kåpålikas and Kålåmukas: Two Lost ‡aivite Sects. Australian National University Centre of Oriental Studies, Oriental Monograph Series, XII. New Delhi: Thomson Press. ______ 1978. “Warrior Ascetics in Indian History.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 98: 61—75. ______ 1996. Review of Wimbush and Valantasis 1985. Journal of Asian Studies 55: 975—976. MacDermot, V. 1971. The Cult of the Seer in the Ancient Middle East. London: Welcome Institute. Macdonell, A. A. and A. B. Keith. 1912. Vedic Index. 2 vols. Reprint. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Madan, T. N. 1987. Non-Renunciation: Themes and Interpretations of Hindu Culture. Delhi: Oxford University Press. ______ 1982. Way of Life: King, Householder, Renouncer. New Delhi: Vikas. Majumdar, R. C. 1960. The Classical Accounts of India. Reprint. Calcutta: Firma KLN, 1981. Malamoud, C. 1972. “Obervations sur la notion de ‘reste’ dan la bråhmanisme.” Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 16: 5—26. ______ 1977. Le svådhyåya: recitation personnelle du Veda. TaittirœyaÅrañyaka, Livre II. Paris: Institut de Civilisation Indienne. ______ 1980. “Theologie de la dette dans les Bråhmaña.” Purußårtha: Science sociales en asie du sud 4: 39—62. Marriott, McKim. 1968. “Caste Ranking and Food Transactions: A Matrix Analysis.” In Structure and Change in Indian Society. Ed. M. Singer and B. S. Cohn, pp. 133—71. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Masson, J. M. 1976. “The Psychology of the Ascetic.” The Journal of Asian Studies 35: 611—625. Mauss, M. 1973. “Techniques of the Body.” Tr. Ben Brewster. Economy and Society 2.1: 70—88. Mesquita, R. 2000. Madhva’s Unknown Literary Sources. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

Bibliography

313

Meyer, J. J. 1927. Über das Wesen altindischen Rechtsschriften und ihr Verhältnis zur einander und zu Kau™ilya. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Miller, B. S. 1990. The Hermit and the Love-Thief. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Miller, D. M. and D. C. Wertz. 1976. Hindu Monastic Life: The Monks and Monasteries of Bhubaneswar. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Mœmå∫så-nyåya-prakå†a. Ed. and tr. F. Edgerton. New Haven: Yale Univesity Press, 1929. Mller, F. Max 1859. A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. London: Williams and Norgate. Nyanaponika Thera 1962. The Heart of Buddhist Meditation: A Handbook of Mental Training Based on the Buddha’s Way of Mindfulness. London: Rider. Obeyesekere, G. 1981. Medusa’s Hair: An Essay on Personal Symbols and Religious Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ______ 1990. The Work of Culture: Symbolic Transformation in Psychoanalysis and Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. O’Flaherty, W. D. 1973. Asceticism and Eroticism in the Mythology of ‡iva. London: Oxford University Press. ______ 1980. Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions. Berkeley: University of California Press. Olivelle, P. 1974. The Origin and the Early Development of Buddhist Monachism. Colombo: M. D. Gunasena. ______ 1975. “A Definition of World Renunciation.” Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 19: 75—83 (included in this volume). ______ 1976—77. Våsudevå†rama Yatidharmaprakå†a. A Treatise on World Renunciation. Critically edited with introduction, annotated translation, and appendices. 2 parts. Vienna, Austria: Institute for Indology, University of Vienna. ______ 1978. “Ritual Suicide and the Rite of Renunciation.” Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 22: 19—44 (included in this volume). ______ 1980. “Pa∞camå†ramavidhi: Rite for Becoming a Naked Ascetic.” Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 24: 129— 145 (included in this volume). ______ 1981a “Contributions to the Semantic History of sa∫nyåsa.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 101: 265—274 (included in this volume). ______ 1981b “Prañavamœmå∫så: A Newly Discovered Work of Vidyårañya.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (Poona, India) 62: 75—101. ______ 1984 “Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharma†åstras.” In Studies in Dharma†åstra, ed. Richard Lariviere, pp. 81—152. Calcutta: Firma KLM (included in this volume).

314

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

______ 1986 Sa∫nyåsapaddhati of Rudradeva. Critically edited with introduction and notes. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Center. ______ 1986—87. Renunciation in Hinduism: A Medieval Debate. Volume I: The Debate and The Advaita Argument. Volume II: The Vi†iß™ådvaita Argument. Vienna, Austria: Institute for Indology, University of Vienna. ______ 1990. “Village vs. Wilderness: Ascetic Ideals and the Hindu World.” In Austin B. Creel and Vasudha Narayanan, ed., Monasticism in the Christian and Hindu Traditions: A Comparative Study, pp. 125—160. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press (included in this volume). ______ 1991. “From Feast to Fast: Food and the Indian Ascetic.” In Rules and Remedies in Classical Indian Law, ed. Julia Leslie, pp. 17—36. Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Vol. 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill (included in this volume). ______ 1992. The Sa∫nyåsa Upanißads: Hindu Scriptures on Asceticism and Renunciation. New York: Oxford University Press. ______ 1993. The ņrama System: The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution. New York: Oxford University Press. ______ 1995a. Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism (critical edition and translation of Yådava Prakå†a’s Yatidharmasamuccaya). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. ______ 1995b. Review of Bronkhorst 1993 in Journal of the American Oriental Society 115: 162—64. ______ 1995c. “Deconstruction of the Body in Indian Asceticism.” In Asceticism, ed. Vincent L. Wimbush and Richard Valantasis, pp. 188—210. New York: Oxford University Press (included in this volume). ______ 1996a. The Upanißads. World’s Classics Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______ 1996b. “DharmaskandhåΔ and Brahmasa∫sthaΔ: A Study of Chåndogya Upanißad 2.23.1.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 116: 205—19. Reprinted in Olivelle 2005b. ______ 1997. The Pa∞catantra: The Book of India’s Folk Wisdon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______ 1998. “Hair and Society: Social Significance of Hair in South Asian Traditions.” In Hair: Its Power and Meaning in Asian Cultures, ed. Alf Hiltebeitel and Barbara D. Miller, pp. 11— 49. New York: State University of New York Press. Reprinted in Olivelle 2005b. ______ 2000. The Dharmasåtras of Åpastamba, Gautama, Baudhåyana, and Vasiß™ha. Sanskrit editions and annotated translations. In Sources of Indian Law, ed. Patrick Olivelle. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ______ 2002a. “Abhakßya and abhojya: An Exploration in Dietary Lan-

Bibliography

315

guage.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 122: 345—354. Reprinted in Olivelle 2005b. ______ 2002b. “Food for Thought: Dietary Regulations and Social Organization in Ancient India.” 2001 Gonda Lecture. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Reprinted in Olivelle 2005b. ______ 2004a. (ed.) Dharma: Studies in Its Semantic, Cultural, and Religious History. Special issue of Journal of Indian Philosophy. Vol. 32, pp. 421—873. ______ 2004b. “Semantic History of dharma: The Middle and Late Vedic Periods.” In Olivelle 2004a, pp. 491—511. Reprinted in Olivelle 2005b. ______ 2005a. Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Månava-Dharma†åstra. New York: Oxford University Press. ______ 2005b. Language, Texts, and Society: Explorations in Ancient Indian Culture and Religion. Florence: University of Florence Press. ______ 2006a. “Explorations in the Early History of Dharma†åstra.” In Olivelle 2006b. Reprinted in Olivelle 2005b. ______ 2006b (ed.). Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE. Oxford University Press, New York. ______ Forthcoming-a. “Power of Words: The Ascetic Appropriation and the Semantic Evolution of dharma.” In Peter Fluegel and Gustaaf Houtman, eds. Asceticism and Power in South and Southeast Asia. London: Routledge and Royal Asiatic Society. Reprinted in Olivelle 2005b. ______ Forthcomng-b. “The Ascetic and the Domestic in Brahmanical Religiosity.” In Critics of Asceticism: Historical Accounts and Comparative Perspectives, ed. Oliver Freiberger. New York: Oxford University Press (included in this volume). Pande, G. C. 1957. Studies in the Origin of Buddhism. Allahabad: University of Allahabad. ______ 1978. ‡ramaña Tradition: Its History and Contribution to Indian Culture. Ahmedabad: L. D. Institute of Indology. Pårå†ara-Mådhavœya. Mådhava’s commentary on the Parå†ara-sm®ti. Ed. V. S. Islampurkar. 3 vols. in 6 parts. Bombay Sanskrit Series 47, 48, 59, 64, 67, 74. Bombay: 1893—1919. Poleman, H. J. 1938. A Census of Indic Manucripts in the United States and Canada. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Prabhu, P. N. 1954. Hindu Social Organization with Reference to Their Psychological Implications. 2nd. ed. Bombay: Longmas, Green. Radhakrishnan, S. 1953. The Principal Upanißads. London: George Allen and Unwin. Raghavan, V. 1968. “Bhåskara’s Gœtåbhåßya.” Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 12—13: 281—294. Ramanujan, A. K. 1973. Speaking of ‡iva. Baltimore: Penguin.

316

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Rhys Davids, T. W. 1903. Buddhist India. Reprint. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971. Rösel, J. 1983. “Landed Endowment and Sacred Food: The Economy of an Indian Temple.” Archives Européennes de Sociologie 24: 44—59. Schmidt, H.-P. 1968. “The Origin of ahi∫så.” In Mélanges d’Indianisme à la mêmoire de Louis Renou, pp. 625—655. Paris: Boccard. Schopen, G. 1984. “Filial Piety and the Monk in the Practice of Indian Buddhism: A Question of ‘Sinicization’ Viewed from the Other Side.” T’oung Pau 70: 110-126. ______ 1985. “Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism: The Layman/Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of Merit.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 10: 9—47. ______ 1997. Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ______ 2005. Figments and Fragments of Mahåyåna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Schrader, F. O. 1912. The Minor Upanißads. Vol. I: Sa∫nyåsa-Upanißads. Madras: Adyar Library. Schweitzer, A. 1960. Indian Thought and Its Development. Tr. Charles E. B. Russell. Boston: Beacon Press. Senart, E. 1882—97. Le Mahåvastu. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Settar, S. 1986. Inviting Death: Historical Experiments on Sepulchral Hill. Dharwad, India: Karnatak University, Institute of Indian Art History. ______ 1990. Pursuing Death: Philosophy and Practice of Voluntary Termination of Life. Dharwad, India: Karnatak University, Institute of Indian Art History. Sharma, B. N. K. 1981 (1961). A History of the Dvaita School of Vedånta and Its Literature. 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sharma, D. H. 1939. Contributions to the History of Brahmanical Asceticism. Poona Oriental Series, 64. Poona: Oriental Book Agency. Singh, S. 1972. Evolution of Sm®ti Law: A Study in the Factors Leading to the Origin and Development of Ancient Indian Legal Ideas. Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakasana. Skurzak, L. 1948. Études sur l’origine de l’ascéticisme indien. Travaux de la societé des sciences et des lettres de Wroclau, A 15. Wroclaw, Poland: Societé des Sciences et de Lettres. ______ 1967—68. “Indian Asceticism in its Historical Development.” Adyar Library Bulltein 31/32: 202—210. Smith, B. K. 1990. “Eaters, Food, and Social Hierarchy in Ancient India: A Dietary Guide to a Revolution in Values.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 58: 177—205. Sprockhoff, J. F. 1976. Sa∫nyåsa: Quellenstudien zur Askese im Hinduismus. Abhandlungen fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 42,1. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Bibliography

317

______ 1979. “Die Alten im alten Indien: Ein Versuch nach brahmanischen Quellen.” Saeculum 30: 374—433. ______ 1981. “Årañyaka und Vånaprastha in der vedischen Literatur: Neue Erwägungen zu einer alten Legende und ihren Problemen.” Pt.1. Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 25: 19—90. ______ 1984. “Årañyaka und Vånaprastha in der vedischen Literatur: Neue Erwägungen zu einer alten Legende und ihren Problemen.” Pt. 2. Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 28: 5—43. ______ 1987. “Ka™haßruti und Månava†rautasütra: eine Nachlese zu Resignation.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 13—14: 235—257. ______ 1991. “Årañyaka und Vånaprastha in der vedischen Literatur: Neue Erwägungen zu einer alten Legende und ihren Problemen.” Pt. 3. Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 35: 5—46. Thakur, U. 1963. The History of Suicide in India: An Introduction. Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar Lal. Thapar, R. 1978. “Renunciation: The Making of a Counter-culture.” In Romila Thapar, Ancient Indian Social History, pp. 63—104. New Delhi: Orient Longman. ______ 1982. “Householders and Renouncers in the Brahmanical and Buddhist Traditions.” In Madan 1982, pp. 273—298. Tokunaga, M. The B®haddevatå. Kyoto: Rinsen. Trautmann, T. R. 1971. Kau™ilya and the Artha†åstra: A Statistical Investigation of the Authorship and Evolution of the Text. Leiden: Brill. Tull, H. W. 1989. The Vedic Origins of Karma: Cosmos as Man in Ancient Indian Myth and Ritual. Albany: State University of New York Press. Turner, B. S. 1984. The Body and Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Varenne, J. 1960. La Mahånåråyaña Upanißad. 2 vols. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard. Vööbus, A. 1960. History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 197. Louvain. Vyas, S. N. 1967. India in the Råmåyaña. Delhi: Atma Ram. Weinrich, F. 1929. “Entwicklung und Theorie der ņrama-Lehre im Umriss.” Archiv fr Religionswissenschaft 27: 77—92. Wezler, A. 1978. Die wahren “Speiseresteesser” (Skt. vighaså†in). Akademie der Wissenschafen und der Literatur. Wiesbaden: Steiner. ______ 2004. “Dharma in the Veda and the Dharma†åstras.” In Olivelle 2004b, pp. 629—54. This is revised translation of “Über den sakramentalen Charakter des Dharma nachsinnend.” In Raum-zeitliche Vermittlung der Transzendenz: Zur ‘sakramentalen’ Dimension religiöser Tradition, ed. G. Oberhammer and M. Schmcker, pp. 63—113. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999. Williams, J. G. 1982. The Art of Gupta India: Empire and Province. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Williams, R. B. 1984. “The Holy Man as the Abode of God in the Swaminarayanan Religion.” In Gods of Flesh/Gods of Stone: The

318

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Embodiment of Divinity in India, ed. Joanne Punzo Waghorne et al., pp. 143—157. Chambersburg, Pa.: Anima Publications. Wilson, H. H. 1972. Religious Sects of the Hindus. Reprint of 1862. Varanasi: Indological Book House. Wimbush, V. L. and R. Valantasis eds. 1995. Asceticism. New York: Oxford University Press. Winternitz, M. 1923. “Ascetic Literature in Ancient India.” Culcutta Review, October: 1-21. ______ 1927. “Zur Lehre von den ņramas.” In Beiträge zur literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschiche Indien. Festgabe Hermann Jacobi, ed. W. Kirfel, pp. 215—227. Bonn: F. Klopp. ______ 1998. History of Indian Literature. Tr. S. Jha. Reprint. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Yatidharmaprakå†a by Våsudevå†rama. Ed. and tr. P. Olivelle. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library, 3—4. Vienna: 1976—77. Yatidharmasa∫graha by Vi†ve†vara Sarasvatœ. Ånandå†rama Sanskrit Series, 60. Poona: 1909.

Index

abhayadakßiñå or abhayadåna, see gift of safety Abhidhånaratnamåla (of Halåyudha) 130, 131 n. Abhidharmako†a 97 n. Åcåråõga Sütra 54 n., 207 n. adhikårin and adhikåra 61, 64 n., 66, 68, 185, 218, 275 Ådi Puråña 76 n. Advaita Vedånta 23, 104, 167, 181, 191 n., 245-46, 248 n., 250 n., 25253, 254 n., 256 n., 265 Agga∞∞a Sutta 50 n., 83, 84 n., 118 Agehananda, B. 193 Agni 22, 68, 72-73, 99, 108, 130 n., 146-47, 150, 215, 218, 281 agnihotra 67, 190 pråñågnihotra 67, 172 n. Agni Puråña 284 n. Ågnive†ya G®hyasütra 130, 138, 142, 153 agnisamåropa or åtmasamåropa 59, 189, 215 n., 280-81 ahi∫så 15, 38-39, 115, 199, 280 Aitareya Årañyaka 46 n., 128, 142, 259, 261 Aitareya Bråhmaña 15, 33, 34, 47 n., 109, 146, 147, 148 n.,150 Aitareya Upanißad 259, 261, 262 Åjœvakas 14, 78 n., 95, 207, 231, 238 n., 249, 278 All India Reporter 194 n. Alsdorf, L. 39 n.

Amarako†a 130, 131, 148 n., 155 n. Amarasi∫ha see ‘Amarako†a’ anagni (“fireless”) 36, 52, 67-68, 168, 281 Ånandånubhava 246-47 Ånandatœrtha (Madhva/Pürñapraj∞a) 263-69 anchorites 11-12, 80, 91 n. see also hermit Anekårthasa∫graha (of Hemacandra) 130 anti-ritualism 15, 18, 50-52, 124 Anu†åsanaparvan 139 Aparårka (commentator on YDh) 278 n., 290 Åpastamba Dharmasütra 17, 49 n., 52 n., 53 n., 54 n., 59 n., 67 n., 68 n., 92 n., 93 n., 97 n., 132, 141, 155 n., 157 n., 160 n., 170 n., 208 n., 231 n., 249, 271 n, 272 n., 273, 276, 277 n., 278, 279, 281, 284 n., 289 Åpastamba ‡rautasütra 188, 189 apostasy/apostate 177, 278 n., 28990, 299 Apte, M. L. and J. Katona-Apte 76 n. Årañyaka 64 Artha†åstra 131, 133 n., 271 n., 275, 278-79, 283-84, 286-90, 293-305 Åruñi Upanißad 142, 168 n., 184, 186 n., 250 n. Aryan vs. non-Aryan 13, 152 Åryåvarta 48 n., 156 asceticism

320

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

and the imitation of animals 4950, 53, 78, 81-82, 91-100, 268 n. and royal symbols 28 and the state 293-305 as “anti-culture” 45, 48-49 attitude toward food 117-18 attitude toward women 111-15, 179-81 competing traditions 11-12, 48-53 definition 29-30 domestic asceticism 27-28 elite asceticism 36 procreation/sexuality 110-11 Sanskrit terminology, see tapas sub-categories 31-32 A†oka 11, 39, 149 å†rama 14, 17-23, 28, 33, 35-37, 51 n., 57-59, 66 n., 67, 70, 127, 135-38, 140, 145-46, 148, 149 n., 154-63, 171, 175, 185-86, 208, 211, 214 n., 218, 245-46, 272-73, 276-77, 282, 284 n., 285, 294 n., 297 n., 299 fifth å†rama 236, 256-58, 260, 262 ņrama Upanißad 138, 142, 194 n., 250 n., 256 Aß™ådhyåyœ, see Påñini ņvalåyana G®hyasütra 231 n., 233 n. ņvalåyana ‡rautasütra 189 n. Atharva Veda 54 n., 261 n. åtman 74, 111, 188 n. Atri 161, 218, 234-35, 247, 277 n., 279 Avadhüta 78, 97, 257 Bachelard, G. 106 Bahüdaka 64 n., 78, 239, 247, 249, 256, 282 Bahv®capari†iß™a 66 n. Baily, G. 58 n. Båña 242, 244, 246 Barua, M. B. 152 n. Basham, A. L. 78 n., 207 n., 231, 238 Basu, Jogiraj 46 n. bathing 22, 49, 67 n., 103-04, 168, 169 n., 179, 214 n., 237, 260 n., 261, 267, 269, 281-82, 288 Baudhåyana Dharmasütra 21, 36, 48 n., 49, 51 n., 52 n., 53 n., 54 n., 59 n., 65 n., 66 n., 67 n., 76, 79, 80, 83, 91, 92 n., 93 n., 94, 96 n., 97 n., 98, 110 n., 116 n., 125 n., 132, 137-42, 149 n., 153 n., 156 n., 158 n., 209 n., 226, 228 n., 232 n., 233 n., 240, 248, 249 n., 254 n., 256, 271 n., 272 n., 273, 274 n., 276, 278-83, 287

Baudhåyana G®hya†eßasütra 138, 142 Baudhåyana Pit®medhasütra 130 n., 142 Baudhåyana ‡rautasütra 129, 130, 142, 153 Beck, E. F. Brenda 106 begging 12, 22, 38, 53, 68-69, 78-79, 82-83, 92, 94, 97, 116-17, 121, 160, 169-71, 217, 223, 232, 268, 289, 295 begging bowl 23, 78, 83, 96, 16970, 192-194, 219, 240, 239, 244, 249-50, 266, 281, 285-86, 296 Bender, E. 129 n. Berg, C. 120 Berger, P. L. 37-38, 44 n., 45 n., 56, 71 Berger, P. L. and T. Luckman 37, 45 n., 55-56, 71 Bhagavad Gœtå 17, 25-26, 58, 59, 76, 132-35, 137 n., 139, 142, 211 n., 246 n., 281 n., bhakti 24-26, 59-60, 135 Bhandarkar, D. R. 150 n., 152 n., 163 n. Bhånujœ Dœkßita 148 n., 155 n. Bhåradvåja ‡rautasütra 188 n. Bhåskara 235 n., 246-47 Bha™™ikåvya 238 bhikßu (“beggar”) 78, 117, 127, 129 n., 131-32, 134, 140, 271 n., 289 female (bhikßuñœ) 300 Bhikßusütras 21, 274 Biardeau, M. and C. Malamoud 46 n., 277 Bilhåña 112, 113 n. Blair, J. C. 146 n. Bloomfield, M. 151 n. Bodewitz, H. 38, 39 n., 58 n., 78 n., 172 n. body 101-25 as house 106-07 as corpse 107-08, 179 female 111-14, 179-81 deconstruction of 101-08 purity/impurity of 102-05, 179 brahmacarya 38, 214 n. see also celibacy and studentship Brahman 169, 181-84, 190-91, 202, 204, 206, 216, 219, 247, 256, 26162, 272, 281 Bråhmañas 71-73, 128, 145, 147, 159 Brahmanism 17-18, 21, 24, 34, 39, 5556, 141, 158, 168, 174, 256 Brahma Upanißad 140, 185, 191, 255 n.

Index

Brahmåvarta 48 n., 156 n. breath 176, 192, 218, 261 as fire 22-23, 65, 67, 172-73, 187, 215 see also Pråñågnihotra as food 35, 74 control of 240 five breaths 22-23, 65 n. Breckenridge, C. A. 76, 117 B®hadårañyaka Upanißad 16, 37 n., 47 n., 52 n., 65 n., 111 n., 116 n., 146, 147 n., 149 n., 152, 163 n., 167 n., 183 n., 191, 198 n., 216 n., 218, 259, 261, 262, 284, B®had-Avadhüta Upanißad 183 n. B®had Devatå 97 n., 156, 161 B®haspati 196, 268 n. B®haspati Sm®ti 271 n., 288 B®hat-Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad 96 n., 97 n., 149 n., 152, 167, 173, 175, 176, 177 n., 180, 181, 183 n., 186, 187, 191 n., 194 n., 237 Bronkhorst, J. 13, 29, 30 Buddha (Gautama) 15, 19-20, 28, 49 n., 56-57, 93, 95-96, 98-99, 111, 160-61, 208, 241, 242 n., 244 n., 278 n. Buddhacarita 19-20, 50 n., 92 n., 9495, 241 n. Buddhism 14-15, 19, 24, 34, 39, 54, 60, 85, 104, 138, 149, 207, 287 n. Bhler, G. 136 n., 153 Buitenen, J. A. B. van 94, 95, 129, 139 n. Caitanyacandrodaya 129 n. cakravartin 28 Caland, W. 130 n., 153 n. Caraka Sa∫hitå 231 n., 243 Cardona, G. 148 n. Carman, J. B. and F. A. Marglin 103 n. caste 24, 46, 51, 61, 103, 106, 116-17, 123, 152 n., 171, 185, 238, 284, 290 Caurapa∞cå†ikå 113 n. celibacy 14, 18-19, 26, 32, 34, 36-38, 40, 50, 52, 56, 58, 109 n., 110-11, 120, 122, 149, 151, 158, 160, 162, 175, 273 n., 285 Chakraborty, K. 277 n. Chalmers, Lord 91 n. Chanda, R. 152 n. Chåndogya Upanißad 16-17, 37 n., 4748, 65 n., 116 n., 246 n., 259, 261, 262, 272, Chintamani Dikshit, T. R. 210 n.

321

Christianity/Christian 29, 32, 34, 69, 91-92, 305 Collins, S. 84 n., 106 n., 118 n., 178 n. Cooper, W. 120 n. creation myths 50, 52, 72-73, 77-78, 83-89, 106-07, 115-16, 118-19, 128, 147-48 Creel, A. and V. Narayanan 43 n., 59 n. Dañ∂atyågavidhi 251-52 Daniels, E. V. 106 Das, V. 43-44, 60-61, 293 n. Dasgupta, S. 253 n. debt (the three debts) 15, 18-19, 3638, 47, 109, 137, 175, 190, 276, 284, 286 Dattåtreya 233 Deo, S. B. 149 n., 232, 275 n., 287 n. Derrett, J. D. M. 274 n. Deshpande, M. 156 n. Deussen, P. 129 n., 154 n., 156 n., 162 n. Deutero-Baudhåyana see ‘Baudhåyana Dharmasütra’ DeWeese, D. 91 n. Dhammapada 60 n. dharma/Dharma 19, 21, 23, 28, 43, 46, 51, 53, 57-59, 61, 67-68, 76, 87, 132 n., 136 n., 137, 156, 158-59, 16869, 183-84, 211, 235, 246-47, 250 n., 272-74, 277, 290, 297-98, svadharma 171 dharmacakrapravartanasütra 28 Dharmårañya Puråña 44 n. Dharma†åstra 21, 23, 26, 46 n., 50 n., 57-59, 60 n., 61-62, 65, 76, 81, 131, 141, 153, 159, 197-98, 208, 231-32, 267 n., 271 n., 272-81, 283-84, 28991, 294 n., 300 n. Dharmayasindhu 223 n., 254 n. Dharmasütra 17, 56, 141, 153, 159, 232, 271 n., 272-73 Dhåtupå™ha 148 Digambara/digambara 115, 150 Dœgha Nikåya 50 n., 83, 92 n., 97, 98, 118, 132 n., 160, 218 n., 241, 244 n., 278 n. Dikshit, T. R. C. 219 n. Douglas, M. 71, 102-03, 106 n., 120-25 Dumont, L. 11, 24, 28, 43-44, 46, 48, 51, 56, 63, 101 Dundas, P. 83, 118 Durkheim, E. 29 Dutt, S. 60 n., 149 n., 275 n.

322

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Edgerton, F. 129, 232 n. epic 12, 21, 26, 33, 36-38, 48, 50, 57, 81, 93, 139, 153 n., 156, 158, 161-62, 211, 293 Farquhar, J. N. 239 fasting 23-24, 55 n., 78, 83, 88, 94, 118, 131, 173 n., 192, 209, 288 fasting to death 83, 88 n., 209, 217, 220, 223-24, 226-28 lunar fast (cåndråyaña/yaticåndråyaña) 24, 192, 227 Fernando, S. Mervyn 283 n. fire (sacred) 22, 34, 52, 160-61 abandoning of 22-23, 53, 67-68, 187-89, 280-81 Firth, R. 120 n. five-nailed animals 68-69, 170-71 Flood, G. 11 n. food 71-77 and creation 83-89, 106-07, 115-16, 118-19 fear of food 77 food effort 81-83 for hermits 79-81 for renouncers 78-79 storage 80-81, 85,88 Freiberger, O. 27 n. Freud, S. 29 Gañapå™ha 155 n. Gandhara 241 n., 244 n. Garu∂a Puråña 209, 224 Gautama Dharmasütra 12, 49 n., 53 n., 59 n., 79 n., 92 n., 93 n., 121 n., 133, 141, 149 n., 153 n., 228 n., 231 n., 249 n., 271 n., 272, 273, 274 n., 275, 276 n., 277 n., 281 n., 283, 284, 289 Gautama Pit®medhasütra 130 n. Geldner, K. F. 143 n., 150 n. Gennep, A. van 120 Ghurye, G. S. 150 n., 198, 238, 243 n. gift 60-61, 173, 288 gift of all one’s possessions 280 gift of safety 66, 193, 199, 202, 208, 219, 280, 282 Gobila G®hyasütra 44 n., 233 n. Gombrich, R. 13, 84 n., 118 n. Gonda, J. 154 n., 231 n., 238 Gopal, R. 130 n. Gopatha Bråhmaña 147 n., 156, 161 n. Gopœnåtha Bha™™a 130 n. Govindaråja (commentator on MDh) 136 n., 137 n. Govindasvåmin (commentator on BDh) 137 n., 153 n., 226, 283

Granthamålikåstotra 263 Greek 149 n., 207, 249 n. G®hyasütra 130, 140, 141, 159, 231 Grnwedel, A. 241 n., 242 n., 244 n. Haberlandt, M. 50 n. hair 72, 91, 93, 102, 120-123, 150, 151 n., 191, 235 matted hair 12, 49, 99, 121-22, 160, 300, 304 shaven-head 11-12, 22, 26, 120-23, 170, 172, 217, 223, 282-83, 296, 300, 304 Halbfass, W. 168 n. Hallpike, C. R. 120 n. Ha∫sa 64 n., 78, 239, 249, 256 Haradatta (commentator on GDh) 153 n., 154 n., 274 n. Harpham, G. 28-31 Hawley, J. 60 Hawley, J. S. and J. Juergenmeyer 26 Heesterman, J. C. 13, 39 n., 59 n., 61, 65 n., 70 n., 101, 158, 159 n., 173-74, 192, 280 n. hermeneutics 51, 145, 169-70, 245, 248 hermit 12, 17, 19, 21, 36-37, 41, 45, 4851, 53-54, 57, 77, 79-83, 88, 91-95, 97-98, 117-18, 121-22, 124, 125 n., 136, 152-53, 157-58, 161, 186, 189 n., 208, 214-15, 228 n., 231, 233, 245-46, 256, 267, 272, 274, 276, 281, 284 n., 285-86, 288-89, 295, 298-302 hair of 121 Hershman, P. 120 Hiltebeitel, A. 139 n. Hinduism 14, 23, 25-26, 43-44 Hirañyake†i G®hyasütra 233 n., 245 n. householder 17-19, 24, 26, 35-39, 4647, 48 n., 51 n., 52-53, 57-59, 62, 68, 78, 91, 93-94, 98, 125 n., 13738, 142, 154-60, 162-63, 167 n., 168, 171-72, 178 n., 186-87, 189 n., 21415, 219, 233, 245, 256, 267 n., 268 n., 272, 276, 285, 299 n. as renouncer 58-59, 137, 140 holy householder 91, 93, 98, 125 n., 137 n., 276 n. Indian Express 26 India Office Mss. Catalogue 221 n. Indus Valley Civilization 13, 46 Ingalls, D. H. H. 54 n. Islam/Muslim 25-26

Index

Jåbåla Upanißad 54 n., 67 n., 93 n., 140-142, 150 n., 157 n., 167 n., 176 n., 177 n., 178, 183 n., 185-88, 191, 211, 219, 220, 221 n., 225, 250, 253 n., 255 n., 256 n., 282 Jåbåli 242, 246 Jacobi, H. 132 n., 207 n. Jaiminœya Bråhmaña 190 Jaiminœya Sa∫hitå 128, 142 Jaiminœya-Upanißad-Bråhmaña 159 n. Jaini, P. S. 114, 115 n. Jainism/Jain 14-15, 18, 20-22, 24, 34, 36, 39, 54, 60, 104, 107, 114-15, 118, 121-23, 127, 129, 132, 141, 149, 154, 166, 207, 231-32, 249, 275 n., 279 n., 287 n. Jamadagni 240, 255 n. Jamison, S. 170 n. Jåtaka 20, 50 n. jåti (caste) 46 jina/Jina 15, 28, 115, 207 Jœvanmuktiviveka (of Vidyårañya) 184 n., 255 n., 257 n. Johnston, E. H. 20, 99 Jones, H. L. 207 n. Jones, J. J. 83 n. Kabir 26 Kadambarœ (of Båña) see ‘Båña’ Kaelber, W. O. 32 n., 146 n. Kaivalya Upanißad 162 n. Kålidåsa Raghuva∫†a 155 n. ‡akuntalå 13, 113 Vikramorva†œya 94 Kalpasütra 207 n. Kåmasütra 112, 131 Kane, P. V. 75, 76 n., 132 n., 140-41, 154 n., 170 n., 198, 207 n., 220 n., 227 n., 228, 243, 253 n., 271 n., 272 n., 273 n., 277 n., 278 n., 281, 284 n. Kangle, R. P. 294 n., 295 n., 297 n., 299 n., 300 n. Kapila 51 n., 138, 234 karma 23, 52, 58, 67 n., 132 n., 133-35, 138-39, 142, 167-69, 175, 247 Karmandin 21 Kathåsaritsågara 233 Ka™ha†ruti Upanißad 83, 142, 143, 168, 172, 186, 189, 190, 209, 210, 211, 221, 222, 250 n., 255 n., Kåtyåyana Sm®ti 271 n., 277 n., 278, 280 n., 284 n., 286, 288, 289, 290, 298 n.

323

Kaußœtaki Upanißad 47 n., 259, 261 Kau™ilya, see Artha†åstra Kautuma Sa∫hitå 128, 142 Keith, A. B. 46 n., 128 n., 148 n., 150 n., 154 n., 161 n. Khadira G®hyasütra 233 n. Khare, R. S. 71-72, 76, 77 n., 115-16 Khare, R. S. and M. S. A. Rao 76 n. Knipe, D. M. 146 n. Krick, H. 228 n., 280 n. Krishnan, Y. 177 n., 289 n. Kullüka (commentator on MDh) 76 n., 136 n., 137 n. Kumårila (commentator on Pms) 163 Kürma Puråña 54 n., 92 n., 93 n., 98 n., 137, 256 n., 257-58 Ku™œcaka 64, 78, 137 n., 170, 239, 247, 249, 256, 282 Ku™™anœmata (of Dåmodaragupta) 232 n. Laghu-Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad 79, 140, 162, 165, 183 n., 186 n., 189, Lariviere, R. W. 271 n., 274 n., 288 n., 291 n., 298 n. Leach, E. R. 120, 122 Leslie, J. 71 n. Levi, S. 46 n. Likhita 239 Lincoln, B. 72, 120 n. Ling, T. 55 n. Liõganirüpaña 233-36, 238, 240, 245 n., 248 Liõgånu†åsana (of Durgasi∫ha) 155 n. Liõga Puråña 50 n., 85, 118 n. Lingat, R. 274, 284 n., 291 Lorenzen, D. 30, 54 n., 231 n., 239 n. MacDermot, V. 92 n. Macdonell, A. A. and A. B. Keith 154 n. Madan, T. N. 101 Madanapårijåta 286 Madhva/Madhvaite see Ånandatœrtha Mådhvamatåcåravidhi (of Vißñutœrtha) 265 Madhyade†a 48 n. Mahåbhårata 12, 20, 21, 36-37, 38, 47 n., 48 n., 49, 50 n., 52, 53 n., 58 n., 59 n., 61 n., 68 n., 81, 88, 92 n., 9397, 98 n., 99, 131, 133 n., 138, 139, 141, 142, 153 n., 154 n., 155 n., 157, 158 n., 163, 170 n., 208 n., 232 n.,

324

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

233, 239, 243-44, 256 n., 274 n., 277 n., 287, 294 n., 296 Mahåbhåßya see Pata∞jali Mahånåråyaña Upanißad 128, 129, 142 Mahåsatipa™™håna Sutta 108 Mahåvagga (of the Pali Vinaya Pi™aka) 54 n., 132 n., 218 n., 249 n., 287 n. Mahåvastu 83 n., 84 Mahåvœra 15 Mahåyåna 129 Maitråyañœ Sa∫hitå 128, 135, 142 Maitråyañœ Upanißad 129, 142 Maitreya Upanißad 73 n., 104 n., 177 n., 179, 181, 182, 183 n., 194 n., 250 n., 261 n. Majjhima Nikåya 49 n., 50 n., 91 n., 92 n., 93, 95, 96, 98, 149 n., 160 Majumdar, R. C. 149 n. Malamoud, C. 36 n., 46 n., 47 n., 78 n., 109 n., 149 n., 150 n., 151, 152 n. Mallinåtha (commentator on Kålidåsa) 155 n., 238, 239 n. Månava Dharma†åstra 23, 35, 37-40, 46 n., 47 n., 48 n., 49 n., 52 n., 53 n., 54 n., 55 n., 57 n., 58 n., 59 n., 60 n., 61, 67, 68 n., 73, 76 n., 83, 84 n., 88, 92, 93 n., 97 n., 105 n., 116, 127, 132, 133, 135-38, 142-43, 146, 148, 155 n., 156, 157 n., 170 n., 175, 208, 211, 225, 227 n., 228 n., 231 n., 232, 233, 235, 243, 255, 267 n., 268 n., 271-72 n., 274 n., 276-80, 281 n., 282, 284-85, 287, 289-90, 294 n., 295 n., 298 n., 299 n. Månava G®hyasütra 233 n. Månava ‡rautasütra 210 n. Mañ∂ükya Upanißad 143, 259, 262 Manu see ‘Månava Dharma†åstra’ Markañ∂eya Puråña 20 Marriott, McKim 115-16 Maskarin (commentator on GDh) 153 n. Masson, J. M. 125 n. ma™ha (“monastery”) 60, 275 Matsya Puråña 53 n., 96 n. Mauss, M. 102 Medhåtithi (commentator on MDh) 137 n., 236, 253 n., 276 n. mendicant/mendicancy 12-13, 22, 32, 36, 38, 40, 48, 53, 58, 65, 77-78, 92, 107, 111, 115, 117-18, 121, 132, 134 n., 137 n., 166, 172, 226, 231, 232 n., 237, 240, 246, 266, 271 n., 273 n., 282, 289, 304

female 244, 301, 303 Mesquit, R. 263 n. Meyer, J. J. 156 n., 159, 162 Milindapaõho 95 Miller, B. S. 113 n. Miller, D. M. and D. C. Wertz 154 n. Mœmå∫så 68-69, 170 see also ‘hermeneutics’ Mœmå∫så-ko†a 145 n. Mœmå∫så-nyåya-prakå†a 68, 145 n., 170 n. Mitåkßarå (of Vij∞åne†vara) see Vij∞åne†vara Mitra Mi†ra see Vœramitrodaya mokßa (liberation)14-15, 48, 58, 70, 87, 110, 115, 135-37, 197, 204, 210, 271-72 of women (strœmokßa) 115 monastic communities female 14 formation 14, 60-61 law in 273-75 mudrå 234, 254-55, 260 Mller, F. Max 293 Muñ∂aka Upanißad 16, 47, 52 n., 54 n., 128, 129, 143, 259, 261 muni 149-53, 271 n., 289 nakedness/nudity 17, 26, 54, 93, 9798, 115, 123, 150, 153, 194, 207, 219, 249-50, 256, 261 Nandana (commentator on MDh) 290 Nandapañ∂ita (commentator on ViDh) 286 n. Nåradaparivråjaka Upanißad 53 n., 54 n., 93 n., 96 n., 97 n., 105 n., 107 n., 112 n., 114 n., 150 n.,168, 172, 175, 176 n., 177-82,, 184, 186-87, 190-91, 194 n., 195, 217-18, 223, 249 n., 253 n., 255 n., 256-57 Nårada Sm®ti 271 n., 272 n., 275 n., 278 n., 279, 280 n., 284-85, 28788, 289 n., 290, 298 n. nåråyañabali 228 Nibandha 21, 23, 59, 131, 228, 239 Nirñayasindhu 223 n., 254 n. Nirvåña 14-15, 105 parinirvåña 241, 242 n. nißedha (prohibition) 68, 169 niv®tti 58, 68, 87, 132 n., 169, 171, 234, 250 n., 272 non-injury see ahi∫så Nyanaponika Thera 107, 108 n.

Index

Nyåyaratnadœpåvali (of Ånandånubhava) 232 n., 247, 248 n. Obeyesekere, G. 31, 120-21 O’Flaherty, W. D. 147 n. Olivelle, P. 13-14, 17, 21-23, 25, 27, 28, 33 n., 35-36, 38, 40 n., 44 n., 45, 46 n., 47 n., 48 n., 50 n., 51, 52 n., 53 n., 55 n., 56 n., 57 n., 60 n., 61 n., 63 n., 66 n., 70-71, 77, 88 n., 93 n., 99, 102 n., 103, 107 n., 108, 109 n., 115 n., 117 n., 118 n., 121 n., 125, 132 n., 136 n., 137 n., 138 n., 141 n., 145 n., 149 n., 158, 165 n., 166 n., 167 n., 169 n., 170 n., 173 n., 174-75, 177 n., 178 n., 183, 184 n., 185 n., 190 n., 191 n., 195 n., 198-99, 231 n., 232 n., 234 n., 244 n., 245 n., 247, 250, 251n, 252, 265, 268n, 271 n., 272 n., 273 n., 274, 276, 281 n., 282 n., 291 n., 293 n., 294 n., 299 n., 300 n. orthodox vs. heterodox 14 outcaste 152 n., 177, 179, 187, 278, 299 Oxford English Dictionary 29 Påiasaddamahaññavo 127 n., 129 n. Påli 107, 129, 132 n., 149, 156, 159-60, 244, 272 n. Pa∞camå†ramavidhi 236, 251-52, 256 På∞caråtra 234-36 Pa∞catantra 99, 131 Pande, G. C. 13, 149, 150 n., 152 n. Påñini 21, 130 n., 155 n., 156 n., 231, 274, 279 n. Paramaha∫sa-parivråjaka Upanißad 96 n., 177 n., 183 n., 184 n., 186 n., 194 n., 211, 217 n., 219 n., 220 n. Paramaha∫sa 64, 67, 70, 78, 170, 219, 239, 247, 250, 253 n., 254, 256, 257, 282 Paramaha∫sasa∫nyåsavidhi 198 Paramaha∫sa Upanißad 107 n., 140, 143, 168 n., 179, 181, 250, 255 n., 256 n. Pårå†ara-Mådhavœya (commentary on the Parå†ara Sm®ti) 226 n., 240 n., 247, 248 n., 253 n., 254 n., 255 n., 286 n. Parå†ara Sm®ti 268 n., 271 n., 284 n. Påraskara G®hyasütra 233 n. Påråyaña Upanißad 262 n. parivråjaka/parivråjita/parivrå™ (renouncer) 57, 127, 130 n., 131-32, 134, 140, 246, 271 n., 295 n.

325

female (parivråjikå) 272 n., 279 n., 300 pårivråjya (renunciation) 127, 136-39 Pata∞jali 130, 149, 156 n., 242-44, 279 n. penance (pråya†citta) 23-24, 41, 59, 72, 95, 161, 227, 238, 281, 289 Phenapa (froth-drinker) 81, 96-97 Poleman, H. J. 198 Prabhu, P. N. 154 n. Praißa formula (The Call) 22, 52 n., 64-66, 133, 138, 140, 169, 193, 199, 203, 208 n., 210, 219, 222, 282 Prajåpati 33-34, 72-73, 108, 115, 147148, 151, 166, 184, 215, 280, 282 Prakå†åtman (author of Pa∞capådikåvivaraña) 253, 262 n. Pråk®t 129 Prañavamœmå∫så (of Vidyårañya) 281 n. Pra†na Upanißad 38, 47 n., 73 Pratåpanårasi∫ha (of Ånandatœrtha) 198, 252 see also Sa∫nyåsapaddhati pravrajyå (renunciation) 107, 127, 271 n., 285 prav®tti 58, 68, 87, 132 n., 138, 169, 272 pråya†cittakåñ∂a 23 Proto-Baudhåyana, see Baudhåyana Dharmasütra Puråña 33, 86 Pürñapraj∞a, see Ånandatœrtha Pürva-mœmå∫så-sütra (of Jaimini) 68 n., 163 n., 178 n., 220 n., 272 n., 277 n. Radhakrishnan, S. 220, 253 n. Raghavan, V. 246 n. Råghavånanda (commentator on MDh)136 n., 285 Råma 50 n., 122, 131 Råmånuja 235 n., 263, 282 Ramanujan, A. K. 235 Råmåyaña 12, 49 n., 58 n., 68 n., 92 n., 131, 135, 141, 143, 153 n., 154, 156 n., 158 n., 161 n., 232 n., 241 n., 242 renunciation admission of women 55, 185, 277-79 and detachment 19, 58, 134, 137, 140, 173, 177-81, 186, 197, 225 and ritual suicide 207-11, 219-29 as non-ritual state 166-72, 187-93 as perfection of ritual 172-174

326

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

date/geography 11 definition of 63-70 domestication of 56-57 emblems 23, 25, 194-95, 296 abandoning emblems 249-50, 253-56 goal of 181-83 in bhakti 25-26 in Gœtå 25, 132-35 in Dharma†åstra 271-91 in Sikh Religion 25-26 origin 13 right to 66, 184-87, 275-79 see also ‘adhikårin’ ritual effects 174 ritual of 22, 184, 193-94, 197-206, 279-83 textual sources 21, 273-75 renouncers 12, 49-51, 92-93, 130-31, 137, 272, 288 as spies 290, 294, 296-302 appearance of 93-94, 194-95 Brahmin as 60-61 clothing of 54, 194 funerary rites 228 hair of 121 property of 53, 280, 284-86, 289 types of 183-84, 249-50, 256 ¥gveda 22, 47 n., 54 n., 64 n., 143, 146, 148, 151 Rhys Davids, T. W. 154 n., 161 n. Rösel, J. 76 n. ‡abara (commentator on Pms) 68 n., 178 n., 220 n. ‡abdakalpadruma 127 n., 134 n. sacrificial cord/string 53, 140, 168, 170, 185, 191, 210, 216, 222, 240, 246-48, 250, 274, 282-83 ‡aivism 24, 231 n., 238-39 Såma Veda 151 n., 54 n. Sa∫hitå 145 ‡a∫karånanda (commentator on JåbU) 219-20 sa∫nyåsa/sa∫nyåsin 22, 25, 52, 63, 121, 127-45, 166, 169, 197, 199 n., 218 n., 271 n., 283 n., 294 n. åturasa∫nyåsa 176, 221 ghorasa∫nyåsin 138, 140 vedasa∫nyåsin 54 n., 136-38, 143, 271 n. vs. tyåga 134-35 Sa∫nyåsadœpikå (of Gopœnåtha Agnihotrin) 198

Sa∫nyåsapaddhati (of Ånandatœrtha) 263-69 Sa∫nyåsapaddhati (of Rudradeva) 198, 234 n., 250-52 Sa∫nyåsapaddhati/Sa∫nyåsavidhi (of Acyutå†rama) 198, 253 Sa∫nyåsa Upanißad 69-70, 96, 140, 165-67, 195, 198, 225, 239, 255 n. Sa∫nyåsavidhi (of Vißñutœrtha) 265 sa∫såra 14, 48, 52, 58, 70, 83, 87, 104, 117, 167, 177, 202, 204, 206, 271, 305 sa∫skåra (rite of passage) 57 Sa∫yutta Nikåya 244 n. ‡aõkara 60, 61, 65, 98 n., 153 n., 163, 167 n., 198, 221 n., 246, 252, 253, 262, 275, 276 n., 279 n. ‡åõkhåyana G®hyasütra 231 n., 233 n. Sanskrit 13, 18, 32, 39, 45, 47, 54, 63, 67, 106, 109 n., 112, 123, 127, 12932, 145, 148, 154 n., 156, 166-67, 185, 194, 215, 217, 222, 232, 293 ‡åntiparvan 139-40, 142 sapiñ∂œkaraña 53, 177, 192, 228, 237 Sarasvatœvilåsa 286 Sarvaj∞anåråyaña (commentator on MDh) 136 n., 137 n., 290 Sarvamüla (of Ånandatœrtha) 263, 264 n. ‡atapatha Bråhmaña 33, 34, 36 n., 46 n., 47 n., 52, 59 n., 64 n., 68 n., 73, 109, 128, 143, 146, 147, 148 n., ‡å™yåyanœya Upanißad 177 n., 186 n., 234 n. ‡aunaka 66 n., 137, 184, 235 Schmidt, H. P. 39 n. Schopen, G. 28, 176 n., 293 n. Schrader, F. O. 140, 142, 210 n., 211 n., 212 n., 215 n. Schweitzer, A. 43 n., 101 n. sects 15, 17, 24-25, 24-25, 54, 56, 5960, 81, 117, 125, 129, 149, 176, 187, 249, 263-65, 275, 278, 289, 29597, 300 sectarianism 22, 152, 239, 246-47 Senart, E. 83 n. Setlur, S. S. 286 n. Settar, S. 118 Sharma, B. N. K. 263 n. Sharma, D. H. 151 n., 152 n., 154 n., 156, 197 n., 239, 273 n., 277 n. Shastri, Gopala 254 n. Sikh religion 25 Singh, S. 13, 150 n. †iß™a 45, 156

Index

Skanda Puråña 64 n., 257 Skurzak, L. 50 n. Smith, B. K. 118 Sm®ticandrikå 286 Sprockhoff, J. F. 47 n., 48 n., 50 n., 54 n., 93 n., 97 n., 140-41, 143, 154 n., 156, 158-59, 162, 165, 210 n., 245 n., 291 n. †råddha 66, 76, 175, 190 ekodiß™a†råddha 228 nandœmukha†råddha 193 pårvaña†råddha 190 †rama 33-34, 36, 59, 145-48, 152, 153 n., 154-55, 162-63 †ramaña 33, 127, 130 n., 131 n., 148-49, 151-53, 156, 158, 249, 272 n., 279 n. ‡rautasütra 129, 135 staff 23, 25, 70, 169-70, 173 n., 181-82, 193-95, 209, 219, 231-48, 249-50, 252, 253 n., 254-55, 256 n., 257, 260, 264 n., 267, 282, 283 n., 286, 296 see also ‘tripod’ Stein, M. A. 264 Sternbach, L. 288 structuralism 43-44, 101-02 ‡ülapåñi (commentator on YDh) 278 n., 285, 290 Sure†vara (commentator on BU) 221 n., 276 n. Sütasa∫hitå 253 n., 254 n., 257 Sütrapråbh®ta 115 n. Sutta Nipåta 92 n., 160 n. ‡vetå†vatara Upanißad 162, 204, 256 Taittirœya Årañyaka 64 n., 149, 151 Taittirœya Bråhmaña 47 n., 108, 147, 188 n., 189 Taittirœya Sa∫hitå 36 n., 46 n., 47 n., 109 n., 128 n., 146 n., 147, 148, 153, 161 n., 188 Taittirœya Upanißad 74, 75 n., 76, 116 n., 118, 163 n., 204, 259, 261, 262 n. tapas 32-34, 36, 38, 50, 59, 139, 14648, 151-52, 153 n., 163 tapasvin 33, 36, 59, 288-89, 298 Thakur, U. 207 n., 208 n., 210 n., 228 n. Thapar, R. 148 n., 293 n. Tœrthaõkara 115, 207 Tokunaga, M. 161 n. topknot 12, 140, 168, 173, 185, 19192, 238 n., 239, 247-48, 250, 283 Trautmann, T. R. 293 n., 294 n., 300 n.

327

Tripådvibhütimahånåråyaña Upanißad 262 n. tripod 240-46 Tripuratåpinœ Upanißad 262 n. trivarga 58 Tull, H. W. 168 n. Turner, B. S. 102 n. Turœyåtœta 78, 96-97 Turœyåtœtåvadhüta Upanißad 96 n., 168 n., 184 n., 250 n., 253 n. udarapåtra/udarapåtrin 78, 96, 250 Upanißad 11, 16, 18, 21, 26, 38, 47, 52 n. Upanißadbrahmayogin (commentator on JåbU) 219-20 Upanißadvåkyamahåko†a 262 n. urbanization 13, 45-46, 55 ürdhvamanthin149, 151 ürdhvaretas 151 Uttarådhyayana 20, 67 n. Våcaspatya 127 n., 134 n. Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra 48 n., 51, 80-81, 92 n., 94, 96 n., 98 n., 138, 153, 158 n., 189 n., 192 n., 232 n., 233, 245-46, 256, 271 n., 272, 274, 276-77, 280-83 Vaikhånasa G®hyasütra 130, 153 n., 188 n., 233 n., 245 n. Vaikhånasa Sa∫hitå 153 n. Vaikhånasa Smårtasütra 130 n., 139, 141-43 Vaikhånasa ‡rautasütra 130, 143 vairågya 177 Vaißñavism 24, 234-35, 238, 250 n., 263 ‡rœ-Vaißñava 191 n. Våjasaneyi Sa∫hitå 64 n. Valantasis, R. 30, 32 Varenne, J. 65 n., 128, 129 n. varña 46, 57, 60-61, 185, 231, 233, 257, 275-77, 290, 297 n. varñå†ramadharma 57, 183 Vasiß™ha Dharmasütra 47 n., 49 n. 53 n., 54 n., 58 n., 59 n., 68 n., 92 n., 93 n., 132-33, 141, 143, 153 n., 156 n., 157 n., 162, 163 n., 170 n., 232, 233 n., 249 n., 256 n., 267 n., 271 n., 272 n., 273-74, 276, 277 n., 278 n., 27980, 281 n., 283-85, 289, 298 n. våtara†ana 149-52 Våyu Puråña 253 n. Vedånta Sütra 65 n., 98 n., 163 n., 221 n., 276 n.

328

ASCETICS AND BRAHMINS

Vedåntatattvaviveka (of N®si∫ha) 225 Vedic religion 13, 16, 22, 46-47, 52, 70, 108 Vedic ritual/sacrifice 22, 34, 39, 48, 59, 68, 73, 94, 116, 146, 152-53, 173, 187, 189, 192-93, 231, 280 n., 282 Vedic society/culture 13, 46, 48, 52, 94, 108, vegetarianism (meat-eating) 15, 3940, 50, 58, 69, 171 vidhi (injunction/rule) 67 n., 68, 169, 280 a†vastanavidhi 81, 88 pa∞camå†ramavidhi 231, 249, 25152, 256 parisa∫khyå 68-69, 170 sa∫nyåsavidhi 66, 143 Vidyårañya 111 n., 253 n., 255 n., 257 n., 281 n. vighaså†in 38 Vij∞åne†vara (commentator on YDh) 228, 276 n., 278, 285 n., 286, 290 Vikhanas, see Vaikhånasa Dharmasütra Vinaya Pi™aka 54 n., 160, 161 n. Vœramitrodaya (of Mitra Mi†ra) 278 n., 286, 290 Vi†iß™ådvaita 191 n., 245, 247, 265 Vißñu Dharmasütra 47 n., 53 n., 58 n., 59 n., 61 n., 68 n., 92 n., 93 n., 98 n., 132, 143, 157 n., 233 n., 271 n., 272 n., 276, 278-80, 281 n., 282, 284 n., 286-87, 289-90, 298 n., 299 n. Vißñu Puråña 50 n. Visuddhimagga 106-07 Vi†varüpa (commentator on YDh) 290 Vivådacintåmañi 286 Vivådaratnåkara 286 Vivarñåcårya, see Prakå†åtman Vööbus, A. 91 n., 92 n. vow (vrata) 19, 23, 36, 55 n., 59, 168, 186, 206, 214, 232, 283, 289 cow-vow 78, 96, 98 dog-vow 98 pigeon-vow 88, 118 python-vow 81 vow of non-injury 115, 194, 203, 211 vow to fast unto death 224, 227 V®ddha-Harœta Sm®ti 285 Vyas, S. N. 161 n. Vyåsa 49, 93-94

wilderness (arañya) vs. village (gråma) 27, 43-62 Weber, M. 28 Weinrich, F. 162 n. Wezler, A. 38, 58 n., 78 n., 274 n., 291 n. Williams, J. G. 241 n. Williams, R. B. 173 n. Wilson, H. H. 238 n. Wimbush, V. L. and R. Valantasis 30, 101 n. Winternitz, M. 21, 131 n., 147, 148 n., 154 n., 155-56, 158, 162 n. Yådava Prakå†a 22, 24, 130, 137, 23940, 245, 248, 265 yajamåna 173-74, 192 n., 231 yaj∞a 33, 52, 76, 139, 146 mahåyaj∞a (Great Sacrifice) 39, 76 Yåj∞avalkya see Yåj∞avalkya Dharma†åstra Yåj∞avalkya Dharma†åstra 23, 47 n., 53 n., 59 n., 61 n., 66 n., 68 n., 92 n., 93 n., 132, 134, 143, 157 n., 208 n., 228 n., 232 n., 233 n., 271 n., 272 n., 275 n., 276-80, 281 n., 282, 285-87, 289 n., 290, 295 n., 299 n., Yåj∞avalkya Upanißad 111 n., 112 n., 114 n., 180, 217-18, 222 Yama/Yamasm®ti 203, 227 yati 127-28, 129 n., 130 n., 131 n., 13637, 139-40, 271 n. Yatidharmaprakå†a 52 n., 63, 66 n., 70, 96, 133, 137 n., 138 n., 169 n., 173 n., 177 n., 184 n., 185 n., 193 n., 195, 197 n., 199, 204, 208-09, 219 n., 221-24, 228 n., 231 n., 235-38, 240 n., 249 n., 251, 253 n., 254 n., 255 n., 256 n., 261 n., 267 n., 26869 n., 280 n., 281 n., 282 n. Yatidharmasa∫graha 66 n., 96 n., 138 n., 182, 198, 209 n., 253, 265 n., 280 n., 281 n., 282 n. Yatidharmasamuccaya 21, 137, 239, 265 Yatiliõgabhedabhaõgavåda (of Vedånta De†ika) 234 n., 235 n., 247 n., 248 n., 250 n., 282 Yatiliõgasamarthana 234 n., 235-36, 247 n., 248 n., 250 n., 253 n., 285 Yatiprañavakalpa (of Ånandatœrtha) 263-64 yuga 58, 85-86, 284