Amarkośa

नामलिङ्गानुशासनम्

2. Dvitīyaṃ kāṇḍam

16. śūdravargaḥ

(Über Śūdras)s

Übersetzt von Alois Payer

mailto:payer@payer.de 

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:

Überarbeitungen:

©opyright: Creative Commons Lizenz (Namensnennung, keine kommerzielle Nutzung, share alike)

Dieser Text ist Teil der Abteilung Sanskrit von Tüpfli's Global Village Library

2. dvitīyaṃ kāṇḍam - Zweiter Teil

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.

Colebrooke (1807): "Men of the fourth tribe."

Vgl.

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: — Artisan castes: 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]