Zitierweise | cite as: Amarasiṃha <6./8. Jhdt. n. Chr.>: Nāmaliṅgānuśāsana (Amarakośa) / übersetzt von Alois Payer <1944 - >. -- 2. Dvitīyaṃ kāṇḍam. -- 16. śūdravargaḥ (Über Śūdras). -- 1. Vers 1 - 4: Śūdra, Mischstände. -- Fassung vom 2017-04-15. -- URL: http://www.payer.de/amarakosa8/amara216a.htm
Erstmals hier publiziert:
©opyright: Creative Commons Lizenz (Namensnennung, keine kommerzielle Nutzung, share alike)
Dieser Text ist Teil der Abteilung Sanskrit von Tüpfli's Global Village Library
Meinem Lehrer und Freund
Prof. Dr. Heinrich von Stietencron
ist die gesamte Amarakośa-Übersetzung
in Dankbarkeit gewidmet.
Falls Sie die diakritischen Zeichen nicht dargestellt bekommen, installieren Sie eine Schrift mit Diakritika wie z.B. Tahoma.
Die Devanāgarī-Zeichen sind in Unicode kodiert. Sie benötigen also eine Unicode-Devanāgarī-Schrift.
WARNUNG: dies ist der Versuch einer Übersetzung und Interpretation eines altindischen Textes. Es ist keine medizinische Anleitung. Vor dem Gebrauch aller hier genannten Heilmittel wird darum ausdrücklich gewarnt. Nur ein erfahrener, gut ausgebildeter ayurvedischer Arzt kann Verschreibungen und Behandlungen machen! Die Bestimmung der Pflanzennamen beruht weitgehend auf Vermutungen kompetenter Āyurvedaspezialisten.
|1.a/b śūdrāś cāvara-varṇāś ca vṛṣalāś ca
शूद्राश्चावरवर्णाश्च वृषलाश्च जघन्यजाः ।१।
[Bezeichnungen für Śūdras]
Colebrooke (1807): "Men of the fourth tribe."
Payer, Alois <1944 - >: Dharmashastra : Einführung und Überblick. -- 4. Sitte und Recht der Stände (varṇadharma). -- URL: http://www.payer.de/dharmashastra/dharmash04.htm
"According to all ancient authorities the special duty of the śūdra was to render service to the twice-born classes, to obtain his livelihood from them and serving a brāhmaṇa conferred greater happiness or benefit on the śūdra than serving a kṣatriya and serving a kṣatriya conferred greater good than serving a vaiśya. According to Gaut. (X. 60-61), Manu ( X. 124-125 ) and others, the śūdra was to wear the old or cast-off clothes, umbrellas, sandals, mattress etc. of his patron and the leavings of food (ucchiṣṭa) were to be given to him. If he became old and unable to do work while serving anyone of the higher varṇas he was to be fed by him whom he had formerly served (Gaut. X. 63). In course of time the position of the śūdra improved. If a śūdra was unable to maintain himself and his family by serving dvijas, he was allowed to maintain himself by having recourse to crafts like carpentry or drawing or painting pictures etc. Nārada (ṛṇādāna 58) allowed him to perform the work of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas in times of distress. Yāj. (I. 120) also says that, if unable to maintain himself by the service of dvijas, the śūdra may carry on the profession of a vaiśya or may take to the various crafts. The Mahābhārata allowed a śūdra who could not maintain himself by the service of higher varṇas to resort to the avocations of a vaiśya, to rearing cattle and to crafts. Others like Laghu-Āśvalāyana ( 22. 5 ), Vṛddha-Hārīta ( VII. 189, 192 ) allowed agriculture to the śūdra. The Kālikāpurāṇa quoted in the Gṛ. R. (p. 479) allowed the śūdra to sell all commodities except honey, skins, lākṣā (lac), wines and flesh, while Bṛhat-Parāśara (p. 101) prohibited the śūdra from selling wine and flesh. Devala quoted in the Mit. ( on Yāj. I. 120) prescribes that the śūdra should serve the twice-born and may engage in agriculture, rearing cattle, carrying loads, sale of commodities, drawing and painting, dancing, singing and playing on musical instruments like the flute, lute, drums and tabors. The foregoing will show that the śūdra gradually rose in social status so far as occupation was concerned and could follow all occupations except those specially reserved for the brāhmaṇa, so much so that śūdras became even kings and Manu (IV. 61) had expressly to enjoin upon brāhmaṇas not to dwell in the kingdom of a śūdra. The smṛtis however did not like that wealth should be accumulated in the hands of the śūdra (though they wore quite willing that kṣatriyas and vaiśyas should command all wealth ). Gaut. ( X. 64-65 ) says that the śūdra’s accumulation of wealth should be for the support and benefit of the other varṇas. Manu (X. 129) says that a śūdra, even though able to accumulate wealth, should not do so, as (on account of his pride of wealth and his ignorance ) he may cause obstructions and trouble to brāhmaṇas. Sudras were divided into numerous subcastes. But there were two main divisions.
One was aniravasita śūdras (such as carpenters and blacksmiths) and the other niravasita śūdras (like cāṇḍālas ); vide note 200 above.
Another division of śūdras was into those who were bhojyānna (i. e. food prepared by whom could be partaken by brāhmaṇas) and abhojyānna. In the first were included one’s slave, one's cowherd, barber, family friend and one who shared with one the crop reared on one's land (vide Yāj. 1. 166). It is worthy of note that even the Mit. adds the potter to the above list. All the other śūdras were such that a brāhmaṇa could not take his food.
A third and well-known division was into sacchūdra (well-conducted ) and asac-chūdra. The former class included those śūdras who followed good occupations or trade, served dvijas and had given up meat and drinking or selling liquor. The Śūdrakamalākara (p. 60) says that asat-śūdras do not incur sin even if they partake of meat and liquor, provided they do not eat forbidden moat and that there is no lapse if one comes in contact with a śūdra that drinks liquor."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 118ff. -- Fair use]
"It may be convenient to bring together the disabilities of the śūdra:
- He was not allowed to study the Veda. Many of the smṛtikāras and writers of digests quote several Vedic passages on this point. A śruti text reads '(The Creator ) crested the brāhmaṇa with Gāyātrī ( metre), the rājanya with Triṣṭubh, the vaiśya with Jagatī, but he did not create the śūdra with any metre; therefore the śūdra is known to be unfit for the saṁskāra (of upanayana) The study of the Veda follows after Upanayana and the Veda speaks of the Upanayana of only three classes ‘one should perform upanayana for a brāhmaṇa in spring, for a rajanya in summer and in śarad (autumn) for a vaiśya.’ Not only was the śūdra not to study the Veda, but Veda study was not to be carried on in his presence (vide note 75 above ). This attitude need not cause wonder. The sacred Vedic literature was largely created and preserved entirely by the brāhmaṇas (the kṣatriyas contributing if at all a very small share in that task ). If the brāhmaṇas desired to keep their sacred treasure for the twice-born classes in these circumstances, it is understandable and for those ages even excusable. In the 20th century there are vast majorities who are not allowed by small minorities of imperialistic and capitalistic tendencies to control the just and equitable distribution of the material goods produced mostly by the labour and co-operation of those majorities and doctrines are being openly professed that certain races alone should be imparted higher and scientific knowledge while other so-called inferior races should be only hewers of wood and drawers of water.
There are however faint traces that in ancient times this prohibition of Veda study was not so absolute and universal as the smṛtis make it. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad IV. 1-2, we have the story of Jānaśruti Pautrāyaṇa and Raikva where the latter addresses Jānaśruti as śūdra and imparts to him the Saṁvarga ( absorption) vidyā. It appears that Janaśruti was a śūdra to whom the vidyā embodied in the Chandogya (which is also Veda ) was imparted. It is no doubt true that in the Vedāntasūtra ( 1. 3. 34 ) the word śūdra is explained not as referring to the class, but as meaning that sorrow (suc) arose in Jānaśruti on hearing the contemptuous talk of the flamingoes about himself and he was overcome (from dru ) by that (i. e. śūdra is derived from śuc and dru). But this far-fetched explanation had to be given because of the practice current in the times of the Vedāntasūtras that the śūdra is not entitled to study the Veda. Gaut. XII. 4 went so far as to prescribe ‘ if the śūdra intentionally listens for committing to memory the Veda, then his ears should be filled with ( molten ) lead and lac; if he utters the Veda, then his tongue may be cut off; if he has mastered the Veda his body should be hacked.'
Though the śūdra could not study the Veda, he was not debarred from hearing the itihāsas (like the Mahābhārata ) and the Purāṇas. The Mahābhārata (Śānti 328. 49 )expressly says that the four varṇas should hear the Mahābhārata through a brāhmaṇa as reader. The Bhāgavatapurāṇa says that as the three Vedas cannot be learnt by women, śūdras and brāhmaṇas (who are so only by birth), the sage (Vyāsa) composed the story of the Bhārata out of compassion for them. The Śūdrakamalākara ( pp. 13-14 ) cites several passages from the purāṇas to the effect that the śūdra could not study the smṛtis and purāṇas by himself. Even Manu II. 16 seems to suggest that only the dvijātis had the privilege to listen to the Manusmṛti ( and not śūdras ). The only privilege conceded by the Śūdrakamalākara to the śūdra is that he can acquire knowledge by listening to the purāṇas read by a brāhmaṇa (p. 17); the Kalpataru and other works allowed the śūdra to read and repeat Purāṇa mantras. Śaṁkarācārya on Vedāntasūtra ( I. 3. 38 ) quotes Śānti 328. 49 and says that the śūdra has no adhikara ( eligibility ) for brahmavidyā based upon a study of the Veda, but that a śūdra can attain spiritual development (just as Vidura and Dharmavyādha mentioned in the Mahābhārata did) and that he may attain to mokṣa, the fruit of correct knowledge. In certain digests we find a smṛti quotation to the effect that Śūdras are Vājasaneyins. This is explained as meaning that the śūdra should follow the procedure prescribed in the gṛhyasūtra of the Vājasaneya Śakhā and a brāhmaṇa should repeat the mantra for him. This is probably based on the Harivaṁśa (Bhaviṣyat-parva, chap. III. 13 ) "all will expound brahma; all will be Vājasaneyins; when the yuga comes to a close śūdras will make use of the word 'bhoḥ’ in address ” (sarve brahma vadiṣyanti sarve Vājasaneyinaḥ).
- The śūdras were not to consecrate sacred fires and to perform the solemn Vedic sacrifices. Vide note 73 above. Jaimini (I. 3. 25-38 ) elaborately discusses this question and arrives at the conclusion that the śūdra cannot consecrate the three sacred fires and so cannot perform Vedic rites. Among the reasons given are that in several Vedic passages only the three higher classes are referred to in the case of the consecration of fires, about the sāmans to be sung, about the food to be taken when observing vrata. It is however interesting to note that at least one ancient teacher ( Bādari) was found who advocated that even śūdras could perform Vedic sacrifices. The Bhāradvāja Śrauta sūtra (V. 2. 8) states the opinion of some that the śūdra can consecrate the three sacred Vedic fires. The Kātyāyana-śrautasūtra (I. 4. 5 ) prescribes that all can perform Vedic rites except those who are deficient in a limb, who are not learned in the Veda, who are impotent and Śūdras; but the commentary thereon states by way of pūrvapakṣa that there are certain Vedic texts which lead to the inference that the Śūdra had the adhikāra for Vedic rites e. g. in Śat. Br. I. 1, 4. 12 ( S. B. E. vol. XII. p. 28 ) it is said with reference to the Haviṣkṛt call “Now there are four different forms of this call, viz. ‘Come hither’ (ehi) in the case of a brāhmaṇa; ‘ approach ’ (āgahi) and ‘ hasten hither ’ (ādrava) in the case of a vaiśya and a member of the military caste and ‘run hither’ (ādhāva) in that of a Śūdra, ” Similarly in the Somayāga in place of the payovrata (vow to drink milk only ) mastu (whey) is prescribed for śūdra (indicating thereby that the śūdra could perform Somayāga)and in Śat. Br. (XIII 8. 3. 11, S. B. E. vol. 44, p. 435 ) with reference to sepulchral mounds it is said ‘for the kṣatriya he may make as high as a man with upstretched arms, for a brāhmaṇa reaching up to the mouth, for a woman up to the hips, for a vaiśya up to the thighs, for a śūdra up to the knee’. The commentary on the Kātyāyana Śrauta I. 1. 6 says that the word śūdra here stands for rathakāra because ( acc. to Yāj. I. 91) his mother’s mother is a śūdra woman.
Though the śūdra was not authorized to perform Vedic rites, he was entitled to perform what is called pūrta-dharma i. e. the building of wells, tanks, temples, parks and distribution of food as works of charity and gifts on such occasions as eclipses and the Sun’s passage from one zodiacal sign into another and on the 12th and other tithis. He was allowed to perform the five daily sacrifices called Mahāyajñas in the ordinary fire, he could perform śrāddha, he was to think of the devatās and utter loudly the word 'namaḥ.’ which was to be the only mantra in his case (i. e. he was not to say ‘Agnaye svāhā’ but to think of Agni and say ‘namaḥ’)· Manu X 127 prescribes that all religious rites for the śūdra are without (Vedic) mantras. According to some the Śūdra could also have what is called Vaivāhika fire (i. e. fire kindled at the time of marriage) in Manu III 67 and Yāj. I. 97, but Medhātithi (on the same verse), the Mit. ( on Yāj. I. 121), the Madanapārijāta ( p. 231) and other works say that he should offer oblations in the ordinary fire and that there is no Vaivāhika fire for the śūdra. All persons including the śūdras and even cāṇḍālas were authorized to repeat the Rāmamantra of 13 letters ( Śrī Rāma jaya Rāma jaya jaya Rāma ) and the Śiva mantra of five letters (namaḥ Śivāya), while dvijātis could repeat the Śiva mantra of six letters (Om namaḥ Śivāya). Vide Śūdrakamalākara pp. 30-31, where passages of Varāha, Vāmana and Bhaviṣya Purāṇas are cited to show that śūdras are entitled to learn and repeat mantras of Viṣṇu from the Pāñcarātra texts and of Śiva, the Sun, Śakti and Vināyaka. The Varāhapurāṇa ( 128. 22-31 ) describes the initiation (dīkṣa) of a śūdra as a devotee of Viṣṇu (as a bhāgavata ).
- As to Saṁskāras, there is some apparent conflict among the authorities. Manu X. 126 says ‘The śūdra incurs no sin (by eating forbidden articles like onions and garlic), he is not fit for saṁskāras, he has no adhikāra for (authority to perform) dharma nor is he forbidden from performing dharma’ and in IV. 80 (which is the same as Vas. Dh. 8. 18. 14 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 71. 48-52) we see 'one should not give advice to a śūdra, nor give him leavings of food nor of sacrificial oblations, one should not impart religious instruction to him nor ask him to perform vratas'. Laghuviṣṇu (1. 15 ) contains the dictum that the śūdra is devoid of any saṁskāra. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 262 explains the words of Manu IV. 80 about vratas in the case of śūdras as applicable only to those śūdras who are not in attendance upon members of the three higher castes and establishes that śūdras can perform vratas (but without homa and muttering of mantras). Aparārka on the same verse ( Manu IV. 80 ) explains that the śūdra cannot perform vratas in person, but only through the medium of a brāhmaṇa. The Śūdrakamalākara ( p. 38 ) holds that śūdras are entitled to perform vratas, fasts, mahādānas and prāyaścittas, but without homa and japa. Manu X. 127 allows religious śūdras to perform all religious acts which dvijātis perform, provided they do not use Vedic mantras. On the other hand Śaṅkha (as quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 13) opines that saṁskāras may be performed for śūdras but without Vedic mantras. Yāma quoted in Sm. C. (I. p. 14) says the same. Veda-Vyāsa (I. 17) prescribes that ten saṁskāras (viz. garbhādhāna, puṁsavana, sīmantonnayana, jātakarma, nāmakaraṇa, niṣkramaṇa, annaprāśana, caula, karṇavedha and vivāha) can be performed in the case of śūdras, but without Vedic mantras. Haradatta ( on Gautama X. 51) quotes a gṛhyakāra to the effect that even in the case of the śūdra the rites of niṣeka, puṁsavana, sīmantonnayana, jātakarma, nāmakaraṇa, annaprāśana and caula are allowed but without Vedic mantras. When Manu prescribes (II. 32) that the śūdra should be given a name connected with service, he indicates that the śūdra could perform the ceremony of nāmakaraṇa. So when Manu (IV. 80 ) states that he deserves no saṁskāra, what he means is that no saṁskāra with Vedic mantras was to be performed in his case. Medhātithi on Manu IV. 80 says that the prohibition to give advice and impart instruction in dharma applies only when these are done for making one’s livelihood, but if a śūdra is a friend of the family of a brāhmaṇa friendly advice or instruction can be given. Vide Śūdrakamalākara p. 47 for several views about the saṁskāras allowed to śūdras.
- Liability to higher punishment for certain offences. If a Śūdra committed adultery with a woman of the three higher castes, Gaut. ( XII. 1-2 ) prescribed the cutting off of his penis and forfeiture of all his property and if he was guilty of this offence when entrusted with the duty of protecting her, he was to suffer death in addition. Vas. Dh. S. 21. 1, Manu VIII. 366 prescribe death in the case of a śūdra having intercourse with a brāhmaṇa woman whether she was willing or unwilling. On the other hand, if a brāhmaṇa committed rape on a brāhmaṇa woman he was fined a thousand and five hundred if he was guilty of adultery with her (Manu VIII. 378) and if a brāhmaṇa had intercourse with a kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra woman, who was not guarded, he was fined five hundred (Manu VIII. 385 ). Similarly in the case of Vākpāruṣya (slander and libel) if a śūdra reviled a brāhmaṇa he received corporal punishment or his tongue was out off (Manu VIII. 270), but if a kṣatriya or vaiśya did so they were respectively fined 100 or 150 ( Manu VIII. 267 ) and if a brāhmaṇa reviled a śūdra, the brāhmaṇa was fined only 12 ( Manu VIII. 268) or nothing (acc. to Gaut. XII. 10 ). In the case of theft, however, the śūdra was fined much less. Vide above p. 152 ( No. 11 among the privileges of brāhmaṇas).
- In the matter of the period for impurity on death or birth the śūdra was held to be impure for a month, while a brāhmaṇa had to observe ten days’ period only. Vide above p. 153 (No. 15 among the privileges of brāhmaṇas ).
- A śūdra could not be a judge or propound what dharma was. Manu (VIII. 9) and Yāj. I. 3 lay down that when the king does not himself look into the litigation of people owing to pressure of other business, he should appoint a learned brāhmaṇa as a judge. Manu ( VIII. 20 ) further says that a king may appoint as his judge even a brāhmaṇa who is so by birth only (i. e. who does not perform the peculiar duties of brāhmaṇas ), but never a śūdra. Kātyāyana ( as quoted in the Mit. on Yāj, I, 3 ) says that when a brāhmaṇa is not available (as a judge ) the king may appoint as judge a kṣatriya or a vaiśya who is proficient in dharmaśāstra, but he should carefully avoid appointing a śūdra as judge.
- A brāhmaṇa was not allowed to receive gifts from a śūdra except under great restrictions. Vide above note 239.
- A brāhmaṇa could take food at the houses of members of the three classes who performed the duties prescribed for them by the śāstras ( according to Gaut. ), but he could not take food from a śūdra except when the śūdra was his own cowherd, or tilled his field or was a hereditary friend of the family, or his own barber or his dāsa. Vide Gaut. XVII. 6 and Manu IV. 253 ( = Viṣṇu Dh. S. 57. 16), Yāj. I. 166, Parāśara IX. 19. Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 16. 22 says ' that food which is brought by an impure śūdra should not be eaten by a brāhmaṇa; ’ but Āpastamba allows śūdras to be cooks in brāhmaṇa households provided they were supervised by a member of the three higher classes and observed certain hygienic rules about paring nails, the cutting of hair. Manu IV. 211 forbade in general the food of a śūdra to a brāhmaṇa and by IV. 223 he laid down that a learned brāhmaṇa should not take cooked food from a śūdra who did not perform śrāddha and other daily rites ( mahāyajñas ) but that he may take from such a śūdra uncooked grain for one night, if he cannot get food from anywhere else. Baud. Dh. S. (II. 2. 1) requires a brāhmaṇa to avoid the food of vṛṣalas (śūdras ). Gradually rules about taking food from śūdras became stricter. The Śankhasmṛti (13. 4 ) remarks that brāhmaṇas fattened on the food given by śūdras are Paṅktidūṣaka. Parasara XI. 13 ordains that a brāhmaṇa may take from a śūdra ghee, oil, milk, molasses and food fried in oil or ghee, but should eat it on a river bank and not in the śūdra’s house and the Par. M. adds (II. 1. pp. 411-12) that this permission is meant to apply only when the brāhmaṇa is tired by travelling and no food from a member of another class is available. Haradatta on Gaut. XVII. 6 remarks that a brāhmaṇa could take food from a śūdra who was a cowherd &c. only in the case of very extreme calamities. Aparārka also (p. 244 on Yāj. I. 168) says the same. In the kalivarjya (actions forbidden in the kali age) the old practice of eating the food of cowherds, barber &c. was forbidden.
- The śūdra gradually came to be so much looked down upon that he could not touch a brāhmaṇa, though at one time he could be a cook in a brāhmaṇa household and a brāhmaṇa could eat food from his house. In the Anuśāsanaparva (59. 33 ) it is said 'a brāhmaṇa should be served by a śūdra from a distance like blazing fire; while he may be waited upon by a kṣatriya or vaiśya after touching him.’ Aparārka (p. 1196) quotes two smṛti texts 'a brāhmaṇa on touching a śūdra or niṣāda becomes pure by ācamana (ceremonial sipping of water); on touching persons lower than these, he becomes pure by bathing, prāṇāyāma and the strength of tapas; on seeing a ram, a cock, a crow, a dog, a śūdra and an antyāvasāyin (an antyaja), one should stop the rite that is being performed and on touching them one should take a bath. On this Aparārka explains that if a man who touched a śūdra cannot bathe then he may resort to sipping water, but if able he must take a bath or that on touching a sat-śūdra one may have recourse to ācamana and on touching an asat-śūdra one must take a bath. We find from the Gṛhyasūtras that in Madhuparka offered to a snātaka the feet of the guest (even if he was a brāhmaṇa) were washed by a śūdra male or female. So there could have been no ban against a śūdra touching a brāhmaṇa then. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 3. 6. 9-10) says that two śūdras should wash the feet of a guest, according to some teachers (in the case of a householder who has several dāsas ), while Āpastamba himself says that one śūdra should wash the guest’s feet and another should sprinkle him with water.
- As the Śūdra could not be initiated into Vedic study, the only āśrama out of the four that he was entitled to was that of the householder. In the Anuśāsanaparva (165. 10 ) we read ‘I am a Śūdra and so I have no right to resort to the four āśramas'. In the Śāntiparva (63. 12-14 ) it is said, ‘in the case of a śūdra who performs service (of the higher classes ), who has done his duty, who has raised offspring, who has only a short span of life left or is reduced to the 10th stage (i. e. is above 90 years of age), the fruits of all āśramas are laid down (as obtained by him) except of the fourth. ’ Medhātithi on Manu VI. 97 explains these words as meaning that the śūdra by serving brāhmaṇas and procreating offspring as a house-holder acquires the merit of all āśramas except mokṣa which is the reward of the proper observance of the duties of the fourth āśrama.
- The life of a śūdra was esteemed rather low. Yāj. III. 236 and Manu XI. 66 include the killing of a woman, a Śūdra, a vaiśya and a kṣatriya among upapātakas; but the prāyaścittas and gifts prescribed for killing these show that the life of the śūdra was not worth much. On killing a kṣatriya, the prayascitta prescribed was brahmacarya for six years, gift of 1000 cows and a bull; for killing a vaiśya, brahmacarya for three years and gift of 100 cows and a bull; for killing a śūdra brahmacarya for one year, gift of 10 cows and a bull. Gaut. XXII. 14-16, Manu XI, 126-130, Yāj III. 266-267 say practically the same thing. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 9. 25. 14-1. 9. 26. 1) says that on killing a crow, a chameleon, a peacock, a cakravāka, flamingo, bhāsa, a frog, ichneumon, musk-rat, a dog, a cow and draught ox the prāyaścitta is the same as that for killing a Śūdra. Manu (XL 131) says ‘on killing a cat, an ichneumon, cāṣa, a frog, a dog, iguana, owl and crow, the prāyaścitta is the same as that for killing a śūdra.
If the śūdra laboured under certain grave disabilities, he had certain compensating advantages. He could follow almost any profession except the few specially reserved for brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas. Even as to the latter many śūdras became kings and Kauṭ. in his Arthaśāstra (IX. 2) speaks of armies of śūdras (vide note 266 above). The śūdra was free from the round of countless daily rites. He was compelled to undergo no saṁskāra (except marriage), he could indulge in any kind of food and drink wine, he had to undergo no penances for lapses from the rules of the śāstras, he had to observe no restrictions of gotra and pravara in marriage. Those western writers who turn up their nose at the position of the śūdras in ancient and medieval India conveniently forget what atrocious crimes were perpetrated by their people in the institution of slavery and in their dealings with the Red Indians and other backward coloured races; how nations of Europe out of false pride of race have passed in the 20th century laws prohibiting marriages between the so-called Aryans and non-Aryans and preventing the latter from holding state offices and carrying on several occupations and how discrimination is made against coloured men on railways, in hotels and other places of public resort and how even in India separate third class compartments were reserved on railways for Europeans, for entering which Indians were prosecuted and sentenced in their own country. Vide Emperor vs Narayan 25 Bom. L. R. 26 for such a case."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 154 - 164. -- Fair use]
"THE ARTISAN CASTES GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS CLEAN SUDRAS.
CHAP. I. —GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
Though in practice many of the Banick or Baniya clans, spoken of in the preceding chapters, are treated as having no higher status than that of clean Sudras, and though one of them, namely, that of the Sonar Baniyas is regarded as actually unclean, yet their claim to be reckoned in the third group of the four main Hindu castes being undeniable, they are not included among Sudras in any Shastra, ancient or modern. The cultivating and the manufacturing castes are equally entitled to be looked upon as Vaishya according to the Shastric definition of the term; but as they do not generally take the sacred thread, they are all regarded as Sudras, and, according to a modern text, only nine of them, namely, the following, are entitled to be treated as clean: —
- Tanti -- Weaver.
- Modakakara -- Confectioner.
- Kulala -- Potter.
- Karmakara -- Ironsmith.
- Teli -- Oil manufacturer.
- Gopa -- Cowherd.
- Barui -- Grower of betel leaf.
- Mali -- Florists.
- Napita -- Barber.
This list does not include any of the chief agricultural classes, and omits also such clean artisans as the goldsmith and the carpenter. In practice a few of the other artisan classes, not included in the list of Nava Sayakas, are regarded as clean Sudras, as also the majority of the cultivating tribes; while the Telis, though included in it, are regarded as more or less unclean in practice. The manufacturing castes that are actually regarded as more or less clean are the following: —
1. Tanti Weaver. 2. Modakakar Confectioner. 3. Kulala Potter. 4. Karmakara Ironsmith. 5. Svarnakara Goldsmith. 6. Sutradhar, Sutar or Barhi... Carpenter. 7. Kasera and Thathera Braziers and coppersmiths 8. Kandu and Bhad Bhunja... Grain parchers. 9. Dirji Tailors.
To form an idea of the exact status of these and other clean Sudras, the reader should bear in mind the; following rules of the Hindu caste system: —
- A man of any of the superior castes may drink such water as is fetched or touched by a clean Sudra, whether the water be of the river Ganges or from any other source.
- The water of the river Ganges, though fetched by an unclean Sudra, is not thereby rendered unfit for the high caste Hindu’s drinking purposes. But every other kind of water is polluted by the touch of an unclean Sudra.
- Even the water of the sacred Ganges is rendered useless to a Hindu by the touch of a non-Hindu.
- The touch of non-Hindus and unclean Sudras being contaminating, it is only the clean Sudras that can render the necessary personal service to the high caste Hindus like the Brahmans, Rajputs, Vaidyas, and Kayasthas.
- The twice-born castes cannot, without rendering themselves liable to expiation, eat any cooked food touched by a Sudra. The result of this rule is that a Sudra menial, whether clean or unclean, can he of no use to a high caste Hindu for the actual cooking of his food, or the serving of it. In fact, in the absence of a Brahman cook, the high caste Hindu has himself to cook the food of his servant. For the actual cuisine work, the clean and the unclean Sudras stand on the same footing. But while the clean Sudra can assist in the process in various ways, the unclean Sudra is not allowed even to enter the cook-room. It is for this reason that the clean Sudras alone are usually appointed as menials in Hindu households.
- Another important difference between the clean and the unclean Sudras lies in the fact, that while a Brahman can minister to the former without losing his Brahmanism, he cannot show such honour to the latter without being degraded for ever.
- Further, though the Shastras forbid the acceptance of the Sudra’s gifts without any reference to his status, yet in practice the best Brahmans do not hesitate to accept the bounty of the Nava Sayakas, when the amount offered is a large one. Most of the great Pandits of the country accept, more or less openly, the gifts of Maharani Svarnamayi, who is a Teli by caste. But, with the exception of the Chaitanite Gossains, even the poorest and most illiterate Brahmans will not usually accept the gifts of a washerman, fisherman, vintner or courtesan."
[Quelle: Bhattacharya, Jogendra Nath: Hindu castes and sects : an exposition of the origin of the Hindu caste system and the bearing of the sects towards each other and towards other religious systems. -- Calcutta : Thacker, 1896. -- S. 224 -226]
Colebrooke (1807): Men of mixed origin." "From the intermarriages of the other tribes."
|1.b/c ā caṇḍālāt tu saṃkīrṇā
आचण्डालात् तु संकीर्णा अम्बष्ठकरणादयः ॥१॥
Bis zum Caṇḍāla (4.c/d) werden die Mischstände aufgezählt, nämlich Ambaṣṭha, Karaṇa usw.
Vgl. die Liste der Mischstände (mit Quellenangaben) in:
Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 69 - 104
Payer, Alois <1944 - >: Dharmashastra : Einführung und Überblick. -- 7. Eheschließung. -- URL: http://www.payer.de/dharmashastra/dharmash07.htm
"The ancient dharmasūtras mention only a few mixed castes. Āp. Dh. S. mentions only cāṇḍāla, paulkasa and vaiṇa. Gautama names five anuloma castes, six pratiloma, one and eight others according to the view of some. Baudhāyana adds to those mentioned by Gautama a few more viz. rathakāra, śvapāka, vaiṇa and kukkuṭa. Vasiṣṭha names even a smaller number than Gautama and Baudhāyana. It is Manu ( X) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. (XVI) that for the first time dilate upon the avocations of the mixed castes. Manu refers to 6 anuloma, 6 pratiloma and 20 doubly mixed castes and states the avocations of about 23; Yāj. names only 13 castes (other than the four varṇas). Uśanas names about 40 and gives their peculiar avocations. All the smṛtis taken together hardly mention more than about one hundred castes.
The number of primary anulomas is only six ( vide Manu X, 10, Yāj. I. 91-92 ), but Manu names only three of them, viz. ambaṣṭha, niṣāda and ugra. The primary pratilomas also are six (vide Manu X. 11-12 and 16-17 and Yāj. I. 93-94) viz. sūta, vaidehaka, cāṇḍāla, māgadha, kṣatr, and āyogava. Further sub-castes are said to arise from the unions of the anulomas and pratilomas with the four varṇas and of the male of one anuloma and the female of another, from the union of pratilomas among themselves and from the union of a male or female of an anuloma caste and the female or male of a pratiloma caste. For example, Yāj. I. 95 defines rathakāra as the offspring of a māhiṣya male and a karaṇa female, i. e. it is a further mixture between two anuloma castes. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 95 says that upanayana and other saṁskāras are performed for the offspring of anuloma persons marrying among themselves. The Smṛtyarthasāra (p. 13) says the same. Similarly Manu X. 15 says that āvṛta and ābhīra spring from the union of a brāhmaṇa with an ugra girl and an ambaṣṭha girl respectively ( i. e. from the union of a brāhmaṇa with anuloma caste girls). Manu X 19 says that śvapāka is the offspring of a kṣatṛ male (a pratiloma) with an ugra female ( an anuloma). Manu X 33 defines maitreyaka as the offspring of a vaidehaka male and an āyogava female (i. e. from parents who are both pratiloma). A smṛti verse quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 95 says that there are six anulomas, 24 doubly mixed castes ( due to the union of the six anulomas with the four varṇas ), 6 pratilomas and 24 doubly mixed castes (due to the unions of 6 pratilomas with four varṇas) i. e. in all 60 and further mixtures of these among themselves give rise to innumerable sub-castes. Similarly Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 7 says that the further mixed castes arising from the unions of mixed castes are numberless. This shows that before the time of the Viṣṇudharmasūtra (i. e. at least about 2000 years ago) numberless castes and sub-castes had been formed and the writers on dharmaśāstra practically gave up in despair the task of deriving them, even though mediately, from the primary varṇas. The same state of things was continued and was rather aggravated by the time of the nibandhakāras. Medhātithi on Manu X. 31 speaks of 60 mixed castes along with the four varṇas and adds that by the intermingling of these endless sub castes are formed. The Mitākṣara on Yāj. I. 95 observes that since the castes springing from the double intermingling of varṇas are innumerable, it is impossible to describe or enumerate them. Similarly the Kṛtyakalpataru in its prakīrṇaka topic of vyavahāra section, when dealing with castes, merely quotes several passages from the smṛtis and does not add a word of its own about the castes, their names or avocations in its own day (first half of 12th century ). The Mit. on Yāj. I. 94 expressly says that the avocations of the pratilomas ( about which Yāj. is silent) should be understood from the smṛtis of Uśanas and Manu. Medieval writers on dharmaśāstra usually ignore the treatment in detail of the numerous sub-castes and content themselves with dilating upon the duties of the four varṇas.
There was great diversity of opinion among the smṛtikāras about the derivation and status of the several subcastes. We find that the same sub-caste is known under five or six different names even so early as the present Manusrmrti. Manu X. 22 gives seven names for the same caste and Manu X. 23 gives five for another. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 92 explains that these different names are due to difference of locality. There is another difficulty. The same name given to a caste is differently derived by different writers (vide under niṣāda and pāraśava below ). For the same sub-caste different names are given in different smṛtis (vide under kṛta and rāmaka). It became difficult to assign any peculiar derivation for groups of people and so Manu (X. 40), Vasiṣṭha (18. 7) and Anuśāsana-parva 148. 29 laid down that men’s sub-caste was to be known from their actions and occupations. This shows that according to most writers castes in the times of the smṛtis were predominantly occupational.
One word that frequently occurs in connection with castes and sub-castes is varṇasaṁkara ( or only saṁkara ). In Manu X 12 and 24 the word varṇasaṁkara is used in the plural in the sense of mixed castes, while in Manu X 40 (and in V. 89) the word saṁkara seems to be used in the sense of 'mixture or intermingling of varṇas’. Gautama (VIII. 3) employs the word saṁkara and says 'on the two ( the brāhmaṇa and the king ) depends the prosperity ( of men ), protection, the prevention of mixture (of varṇas) and the (accumulation of) merit ( or the observance of dharma )'. Nārada (strīpuṁsa 102 ) says ‘to be born from a union in the inverse order of varṇas amounts to varṇasaṁkara;’ while Bṛhaspati quoted in the ṝtyakalpataru appears to apply the word varṇasaṁkara to both anuloma and pratiloma castes. Baud. Dh. S. (I. 9. 16) says that those who are born of varṇasaṁkara are called vrātyas. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 96 applies the word varṇasaṁkara to both anuloma and pratiloma progeny. Medhātithi on Manu V. 88 says that the word ‘saṁkarajāta ’ indicates pratilomas like āyogava and that even though as regards anulomas there is intermingling (of varṇas), yet as they have the privileges of the caste of their mothers, even Manu himself does not apply the word saṁkīrṇayoni to them as seen above ( Manu X. 25 ). Yāma quoted in the Kṛtyakalpataru says ‘ Varṇasaṁkara arises by the violation of the restrictions ( about marriage ); if the proper order of varṇas (i. e. male of higher varṇa marrying a woman of a lower varṇa) is followed, (the offspring) is entitled to be regarded as belonging to the system of varṇas, but if the reverse order is followed it is sin.’ Manu ( X. 24 ) says ' mixed castes arise by members of one varṇa having sexual intercourse with women of another varṇa, by marrying women who ought not to have been married (such as a sagotra girl) and by neglect of the duties peculiar to one's varṇa'. The Anuśāsanaparva 48. 1 remarks that 'varṇasaṁkara arises from wealth, greed, desires, uncertainty about the varṇa (of a person) or ignorance about varṇa.' Even in such a philosophical treatise as the Bhagavad-gītā (I. 41-43), it is said when women become corrupt ( or demoralised ), intermingling of varṇas arises; saṁkara necessarily leads the whole family and the destroyer of the family to hell. By reason of these transgressions of the destroyers of families which bring about varṇasaṁkara, the ancient caste observances and family observances are subverted. ’
On account of the great emphasis laid on the prevention of varṇasaṁkara the smṛtis ordain that it is one of the principal duties of the king to punish people if they transgress the rules prescribed for varṇas and to punish men and women if guilty of varṇasaṁkara. Gautama ( XI. 9-10 ) says 'the king should protect the varṇas and āśramas according to the śāstras and he should make them conform to their duties when they swerve from them; ’ Vasiṣṭha (19. 7-8) ' the king paying attention to all these viz. the observances of countries, castes and families should make the four varṇas conform to their duties and should punish them when they go astray ’; Viṣṇu Dh. S. III. 3 and Yāj. I. 361, Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa 27, Matsyapurāṇa 215. 63 say the same. Nārada (strīpuṁsa 113 ) says ‘ when a brāhmaṇa woman goes astray a cāṇḍāla is born from a śūdra male (and the brāhmaṇa woman ); therefore the king should specially protect women from saṁkara’. It is on account of this that so early as in the first centuries of the Christian era we see that king Vāsiṭhīputa Siri Puḻumāyi is extolled as having prevented the mixture of the four varṇas ( E. I. vol. VIII pp. 60-61, ‘ vinivatitacātuvaṇa-sakarasa ). ’ That varṇasaṁkara had gone too far in the opinion of the author of the Mahābhārata (Vanaparva 180. 31-33 ) follows from the following words which are despairingly put in the mouth of Yudhiṣṭhira “It appears to me that it is very difficult to ascertain the caste of human beings on account of the confusion of all varṇas; all sorts of men are always begetting offspring from all sorts of women; speech, sexual intercourse, being born and death - these are common to all human beings; and there is scriptural authority (for this view ) in the words 'We, whoever we are, offer the sacrifice'. Hence those who have seen the truth regard character as the principal thing desired.” Śaṁkarācārya in his bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra I. 3. 33 remarks that, though in his day varṇas and āśramas had become disorganised and unstable as to their dharmas, that was not the case in other ages, since otherwise the śāstras laying down regulations for them would have to be deemed purposeless or futile."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 57 - 61. -- Fair use]
|2.a śūdrāviśos tu karaṇo
Der Sohn einer Śūdrafrau und eines Vaiśyamanns ist ein
Colebrooke (1807): "A scribe"
"Karaṇa. According to Gaut. ( IV. 17 the view of some ācāryas) and Yāj. I. 92, he is the child of the marriage of a vaiśya and a śūdra woman (i. e. he is an anuloma). Manu (X, 22 ) says that a kṣatriya who is a vrātya (i. e. for whom no upanayana has been performed ) has from a similar woman a child variously called Jhalla, Malla, Niccivi (Licchivi? ), Naṭa, Karaṇa, Khaśa, Draviḍa. ādiparva 115, 43 tells us that Dhṛtarāṣṭra had from a vaiśya female a karana son named Yuyutsu. Kṣīrasvāmī on Amara says that karaṇa also denotes a group of officers like kāyasthas and adhyakṣas ( superintendents ). The Sahyādrikhaṇḍa (26. 49-51) says he is the same as cāraṇa or vaitālika and his business is to sing the praises of kings and brāhmaṇas and study the science of erotics."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 74f. -- Fair use]
ऽम्बष्ठो वैश्याद्विजन्मनोः ।२।
Der Sohn einer Vaiśyafrau und eines Brahmanenmanns ist ein
Colebrooke (1807): "A physician
"Ambaṣṭha — ( same as Bhṛjjakaṇṭha ).
In Ait. Br. ( chap. 39. 7 ) king Āmbaṣṭhya is said to have performed an Aśvamedha sacrifice. In Pāṇ. VIII. 3. 97 the word Ambaṣṭha is derived and on Pāṇ. IV. 1. 170 Āmbaṣṭhya ( king? ) is cited by Pat. as an example derived from Ambaṣṭha (a country ). It is a question whether the caste of Ambaṣṭhas derived its name from a country. Karṇaparva ( 6. 11 ) mentions a king Ambaṣṭha. In Baud. Dh. S. I. 9. 3, Manu X. 8, Yāj. I. 91, Uśanas 31, Nārada ( strīpuṁsa v. 107 ) Ambaṣṭha is an anuloma sprung from the marriage of a brāhmaṇa with a vaiśya woman, while according to Gautama 4. 14 as interpreted by Haradatta he is the offspring of a kṣatriya from a vaiśya woman. Manu X. 47 prescribes the profession of medicine for him and Uśanas ( 31-33 ) says that he may subsist by agriculture or may be a fire-dancer or he may be a herald (? banner proclaimer) and live by surgery. Vaik. 10. 12 has almost the same words; the Sahyādri-khaṇḍa ( 26. 40-41 ) says the same. Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. I. 6. 19. 14 says that ambaṣṭha and śālyakṛnta are synonymous. The Baidyas of Bengal came to be the ambaṣṭhas of Manu (vide Risley’s ‘People of India’ p. 114)."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 72f. -- Fair use]
|2.c śūdrā-kṣatriyayor ugro
Der Sohn einer einer Śūdrafrau und eines Kṣatriyamanns ist ein
"Ugra. For Vedic reference see above (p. 45). According to Baud. Dh. S. (1. 9. 5), Manu X. 9, Kauṭ. III. 7, Yāj. 1. 92, Anuśāsana 48, 7 be is an anuloma offspring of a kṣatriya male from a śūdra woman, while according to Uśanas (verse 41) he is the offspring of the union of a brāhmaṇa with a śūdra woman. The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 2. 7. 20) allows a pupil to bring wealth from a śūdra or an ugra when the teacher is in distress or difficulties. Gaut. 4. 14 ( as explained by Haradatta ) says that ugra is the offspring of a vaiśya from a śūdra female. The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 6. 18. 1 ) says that a brāhmaṇa may accept the gift of money, corn like paddy, flesh of deer, house, field, hay for oxen from an ugra. Manu X. 49 says that the ugra should subsist by catching and killing animals that hide in holes, while Uśanas (verse 41) states that he is to be the staff-bearer of the king and to carry out the punishments inflicted on offenders. Vide Vaik. 10. 13. According to the Sahyādrikhaṇḍa and Śūdrakamalākara (p. 255 ) he is called ' Rajpuūa ’. In the Jātiviveka (the D. C. collection of 1887-1891 No. 347 ) he is called Rāvut."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 73f. -- Fair use]
|2.d māgadhaḥ kṣatriyā-viśoḥ
मागधः क्षत्रियाविशोः ॥२॥
Der Sohn einer Kṣatriyafrau und eines Vaiśyamanns ist ein
Colebrooke (1807): "A bard"
"Māgadha. According to Gaut. IV. 15, Anuśāsana 48. 12, Kauṭ. (III. 7 ), Manu X. 11, 17 and Yāj. I. 93 he is a pratiloma caste sprung from the union of a vaiśya male and a kṣatriya female; while according to the view of some teachers mentioned in Gaut. IV. 16, Uśanas (7) and Vaik. (X. 13) he is the offspring of a vaiśya male and a brāhmaṇa female; but Baud. Dh. S. I. 9. 7 says he is the offspring of a śūdra male and a vaiśya female and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 5 makes him the offspring of a śūdra from a kṣatriya female. Manu (X 47) prescribes trade by land routes for Māgadhas; Anuśāsana X. 48 says that they maintain themselves on speech (i. e. by praise) and are also called bandin. Sahyādrikhaṇḍa ( 26. 60-62 ) also calls him bandin and says he is slightly superior to śūdra and that he is clever in ornate prose, in six languages, in kalās and he is a devotee of Kālikā. Vaik. (X. 13 ) states that even śūdras cannot take food cooked by him, that he is an untouchable and maintains himself by praise, by singing or by being a messenger. Uśanas (7-8) says that he becomes the bandin of brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas, he maintains himself by lauding (the deeds of others) or as a messenger or servant of a vaiśya. Pāṇini IV. 1. 70 derives the word Māgadha from the country Magadha, but apparently not in the sense of a caste."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 90f. -- Fair use]
|3.a māhiṣo 'ryā-kṣatriyayoḥ
Der Sohn einer Vaiśyafrau und eines Kṣatriyamanns ist ein
"Māhiṣya. According to the view of some teachers mentioned in Gaut. IV, 17 and Yāj. I. 92 he is an anuloma caste sprung from the marriage of a kṣatriya with a vaiśya woman. According to the Sahyādrikhaṇḍa ( 26. 45-46 ) he is entitled to upanayana and his avocations are astrology, augury, prognostications due to svara. According to the Sūtasaṁhitā he is the same as ambaṣṭha."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 91. -- Fair use]
|3.b kṣattāryā-śūdrayoḥ sutaḥ
क्षत्तार्याशूद्रयोः सुतः ।३।
Der Sohn einer Vaiśyafrau und eines Śūdramanns ist ein
"Kṣatṛ. For vedic references see above. According to Baud. Dh. S. I. 9. 7, Kauṭ. (III. 7 ), Manu X. 12, 13 and 16, Yāj. I. 94, Nārada (strīpuṁsa 112 ), this is a pratiloma caste sprung from a śūdra father and kṣatriya mother. Manu ( X. 49-50 ) prescribes for him the same avocation as for ugra and pulkasa. Vas. Dh. S. 18. 2 calls him vaiṇa. In the Amarakośa ksatr is given three meanings, a charioteer, doorkeeper and the caste described above. In Chāndogya Up. IV. 1. 5, 7, 8 the word seems to mean only door-keeper. Pāṇ. notices the word (VI. 4. 11). The Sahyādrikhaṇḍa ( 26. 63-66 ) says that kṣatr is also called niṣāda and that he is an expert in catching deer by means of nets, is a forester and kills wild animals, also rings a bell at night to remind people of the hour."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 79. -- Fair use]
|3.c/d brāhmaṇyāṃ kṣatriyāt sūtas
Der von einem Kṣatriyamann mit einer Brahmanin gezeugte Sohn ist ein
Colebrooke (1807): "A charioteer."
"Sūta. For vedic references see above p. 43. According to Gaut. (IV. 15), Baud. Dh. S. (I. 9. 9), Vas. (18. 6), Kauṭ. (III. 7), Manu (X. 11), Nārada ( strīpuṁsa 110), Viṣṇu Dh. S. (16. 6), Yāj. (I. 93) and Sūtasaṁhitā, he is a pratiloma sprung from a kṣatriya male and a brāhmaṇa woman. Kauṭ. is careful to add that the sūta who figures in the purāṇas as the reciter is quite different from this. A vārtika on Pāṇ. ( VI. 3. 70 ) teaches the formation of words like sūtaputrī. According to Manu (X. 47) and Viṣṇu the avocation of sūtas is driving a chariot (i. e. breaking and yoking horses). According to Vaik. (X. 13) he makes his livelihood by reminding the king of his duties and by cooking food for him. Uśanas (v. 3) also says that his business is to remind (a king) of his duties. According to the Karṇaparva (32. 48) sūtas are the attendants of brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas and the latter need not carry out what the sūta says. According to the Vāyupurāṇa (vol. 1. 1. 33-33 and vol. II. 1. 139 ) the sūta was to preserve the pedigrees of kings and great men and traditions about learning or books, he is not authorised to study the Veda, the middling way of maintenance for him is to depend upon kings and to look after chariots, elephants and horses; an inferior way of maintenance is the practice of medicine. The Vaik. ( X. 13 ) and the Sūtasaṁhitā expressly say that the difference between the sūta and the rathakāra consists in this that the former is the offspring of a marriage, while the latter is the offspring of a clandestine union of a kṣatriya male with a brāhmaṇa woman. The Sahyādrikhaṇḍa (266. 53-54) says that he is inferior to kṣatriyas, but is entitled to do all the work of a kṣatriya and that he also performs the work of a charioteer, of taming elephants and riding horses."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 79. -- Fair use]
|3.d tasyāṃ vaidehako viśaḥ
तस्यां वैदेहको विशः ॥३॥
Ein von einem Vaiśyamann mit einer Brahmanin gezeugter Sohn ist ein
Colebrooke (1807): "A trader"
"Vaidehaka. According to Baud. Dh. (1. 9. 8 ), Kauṭ. ( III. 7 ), Manu X. II, 13, 17, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 6, Nārada (strīpuṁsa 111), Yāj. I. 93, Anuśāsana 48. 10 he is a pratiloma sprung from a vaiśya male and a brāhmaṇa female; while according to Gaut. IV. 15 he is the offspring of a śūdra from a kṣatriya woman and according to Vaik. (X. 14), the view of some ācāryas In Gaut. IV. 17 and Uśanas (20) he is the offspring of a śūdra male from a vaiśya female. According to Manu X. 47 and Agnipurāṇa (151. 14) his peculiar work is to attend on and guard women (in harems etc), while according to Uśanas (20-21) and Vaik. ( X. 14) he is to tend goats, cows and buffaloes and to sell milk, curds, butter-milk and ghee. The Sūta-saṁhitā says that vaideha and pulkasa are the same."
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 95f. -- Fair use]
|4.a/b. rathakāras tu māhiṣyāt karaṇyāṃ yasya saṃbhavaḥ
रथकारस्तु माहिष्यात्करण्यां यस्य संभवः ।४।
Ein Sohn, der aus der Verbindung eines Māhiṣya mit einer Karaṇafrau entsteht, ist ein
Colebrooke (1807): "A car-maker"
"Rathakāra. Vide above pp. 43, 45 for Vedic references. According to Baud. gr. II. 5. 6 and Bhāradvāja gṛ. (I) his upanayana was to be performed in the rainy season. It appears he lost his status gradually. In the Baud. Dh. S. (I. 9. 6) he is the offspring of the marriage of a vaiśya male with a śūdra female. According to Yāj. I. 95 he is an anuloma doubly mixed as he is the offspring of a māhiṣya male from a karaṇa female and according to a prose passage of Śaṅkha quoted by the Mit. the rathakāra is entitled to have upanayana performed, to offer sacrifices and gifts and makes his living by learning the art of taming horses, of making chariots and building houses. According to Uśanas (5-6) and Vaik. ( X. 13 ) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a kṣatriya male and a brāhmaṇa woman and he is to behave like a śūdra, he is not a twice-born (dvija) and cannot repeat Vedic mantras and makes his living by tending and driving horses and carts.@
[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang Vaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 94. -- Fair use]
|4.c/d syāc caṇḍālas tu janito brāhmaṇyāṃ vṛṣalena yaḥ
स्याच्चण्डालस् तु जनितो ब्राह्मण्यां वृषलेन यः ॥४॥
Wer von einem Wicht (Śūdra) mit einer Brahmanin gezeugt wurde, ist ein
"Cāṇḍāla (or caṇḍāla). For Vedic references see above pp. 44-45. Acc. to Gaut. IV. 15-16, Vas. Dh. S. 18. 1, Baud. Dh. S. I. 9. 7, Manu X. 12, Yāj. I. 93, Anuśāsana 48. 11 he is a pratiloma caste sprung of a śūdra from a brāhmaṇa woman. He is the lowest among men ( Manu X. 12), beyond the pale of religious observances prescribed for the four varṇas (sarvadharma-bahiṣkṛta, as Yāj. I. 93 says ) and often spoken of in the same breath with dogs and crows (e. g. Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 5, Gaut. 15. 25, Yāj. I. 103 ). ' The word occurs in the kulālādi gaṇa (Pāṇ. IV. 3. 118 ).
Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti (I. 9-10 ) says that there are three kinds of cāṇḍālas. viz.
- the offspring of a śūdra from a brāhmaṇa woman,
- the offspring of an unmarried woman,
- the offspring of a union with a sagotra girl.
Yāma quoted in Par. M. vol. II. part 1 p. 306 says that
- one born of a person who after becoming an ascetic turns back to the householder’s life,
- one born of a sagotra woman and
- one who is the offspring of a śūdra from a brāhmaṇa woman
are all cāṇḍālas.
Laghu-Śātātapa ( 59 ) has a similar verse.
Manu (X 51-56) says that cāṇḍālas and śvapacas
- should have their houses outside the village,
- vessels used by them cannot be used by others (even after putting them in fire ),
- their wealth consists of dogs and asses,
- their clothes should be the garments on corpses,
- they should take their food in broken vessels,
- their ornaments were to be made of iron,
- they should incessantly roam,
- they are not to enter towns and villages at night,
- they have to carry the corpses of persons who have no relatives,
- they are to be hangmen when the king so orders,
- they may take the clothes, ornaments and beds of persons that are to be hanged.
Uśanas (9-10) says that
- their ornaments are to be of lead or iron,
- they should have a leather thong round their necks or a cymbal under their armpits,
- they should remove the dirt of the village in the first part of the day.
According to Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 11 and 14 their avocation is to be hangmen or to kill those offenders who are condemned to death and cāṇḍālas have to stay outside the village and to wear the clothes on corpses.
Śānti 141. 29-32 gives a graphic description of their hamlet. The classical description of a cāṇḍāla hamlet is in the Kādambarī of Bāṇa. In Anuśāsana (29, 17) Mataṅga is called a cāṇḍāla because he was born of a brāhmaṇa woman from a barber.
Fa Hien (405-411 A. D.) describes how cāṇḍālas had to live apart and give notice of their approach when entering a town or market place by striking a piece of wood to make themselves known so that a man may avoid them and not come in contact with them (vide ‘Record of Buddhist kingdoms’ tr. by Legge, p. 43 ).
In modern times cāṇḍālas are returned as a scheduled caste in Madras and Orissa."[Quelle: Kane, Pandurang sVaman <1880 - 1972>: History of Dharmasastra : (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law). -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. -- Vol. II, part I. -- 2. ed. -- 1974. -- S. 81f. -- Fair use]
Zu Vers 5 -