the Purus, who were subsequently represented as produced from the sage Vashistha's cow, to aid him in his fight with Vishwamitra, are met with in the Rig Veda, but the words panch janah and panch kshiti mean the five people and not the four castes and the Nisbádas, as some writers fancy them to be. It is only as we go on that references to caste become more explicit. For instance, in the Satpatha Brahmana (II-1-4-II) we read "uttering 'Bhu' Prajapatí created the Brahmana, uttering 'Bhuvah,' He created the Kshatra, uttering 'Swah,' He created the Vaisya. All this world is so much as Bráhmana, Kshatra and Vis " There is here no mention of the Sudras, who are, however, declared in the Taitreya Brahmana to have sprung from the Asuras or from existence." In the Brihad Áranyaka Upanishad (1, 4, 9 to 14) we

non

find the Brahmana to be "one who like Brahm itself knows only his self, and worships no other deity. The Kshatriya represents power (law) and dharma both among gods and men, the Vaisya the lower classes of gods and the people (vis) among men, and the Sudra (varna) the earth, the nourisber."

66

"flat

The word generally used both in ancient as well as in modern writings is varna (color) not caste (jati), thus showing that the Aryans who called themselves the "white friends of Indra," and described their enemies the Dasyus, the aborigines, as the nosed, the black-skinned Dasy us," were fairer in complexion than the latter, and that by a catural transition the word Dasyu" became Dâsa, the modern appellation of slave in India, and was made to apply to all Sudras. The only division of castes, properly so called, known in the Vedic times, was therefore the division between the white-skinned Aryans and the dark-skinned aborigines of the land. In other lands, and even in modern times the aborigines have been exterminated to make room for the white settlers. The ancient Aryans were more humane and allowed the aborigines to exist in their communities as an inferior caste or color (varna) under the name of Dâsa or Dasyu.

Caste in the Smriti and the Epic Periods. It is in the Institutes of Manu and later writers that caste was recognized to be one of the chief, perhaps the chief institut on, of Aryan society, though even the Institutes of Manu and other Smriti writers do not afford any trace of what it has come to be in modern times. Progress was then recognized to be the law of society, and accession from

one caste to another could not have been denied by these sages in the way it now is. “The duties in the Krita Yuga are differen from those of the Treta Yuga, those of the Treta from those of the Dwâpara, and those of the Kali from those of the Dwâpara. In the Krita tapas (ascetism) was the chief duty; in the Treta it was knowledge; in the Dwâpara it was sacrifice; and in the Kali they say charity is the only one duty. But, for the protection of all this creation, the Great Effulgent assigned to those who were created from his mouth, arms, thighs and feet, various duties, He assigned to the Brahmana the duty of imparting and receiving instruction, performing and officiati g at sacrifices, giving and receiving gifts. To the Kshatriya he assigned the duty of protecting people, making gifts, performing sacrifices, reading the scriptures and non-attachment to objects of the senses. To the Vaisya he assigned the duty of rearing cattle, making gifts and sacrifices, studying the scriptures, trading by sea and receiving and lending money on interest, and the profession of agriculture. To the Sudra he assigned only one duty, viz., to serve the other three classes without jealousy. The Bráhmana is the lord of all as he was produced from the principal member of the body of the Creator, as he is the oldest of all created beings, and as he is the preserver of the Veda'' (Manu I-85 to 91 and 93.)

The language of Manu is thus as symbolical as that of the Vedas, and points to the division of work in Aryan society as answering to its creation from the mouth and other parts of the body of Prajapatí. Later Smriti writers like Vasishtha and Parásara, as well as the authors of the Grihya Sutras, are also as liberal. Vasishtha declares that, "No one is a Bráhmana without knowing the Rig Veda for, as said in the Sloka, a twice born who without reading the Veda devotes himself to something else, becomes a Sudra in this very life. A person does not become a Sudra merely by trade or lending money on interest or engaging as a physician. No assembly can be said to be an assembly of Bráhmans, though thousands of persons who live upon the claims of birth alone and are ignorant of their duties as well as of the Vedas, are assembled there. The four orders are constituted by their nature and their Sanskáras, and the meaning of the passage that He, Prájapatí, created the Brahmana "from the Gayatri metre, the Rájanya from the Trishtubha, and the Vaisya from the

66

Jágatí, is that these various classes of persons are purified by Sanskaras performed according to these metres." (Vashishtha Smriti, Chapters 2 and 3.) In the Apastamba Sutras we read of a person of a lower order rising into a higher one for which he may be qualified by the performance of Dharma, and of a person of a higher order descending into a lower one by acting otherwise. Manu's dictum of a Sudra becoming a Bráhmana and a Brahmana a Sudra, a Kshatriya or a Vaisya, was thus more or less recognized by later writers also. In the Mahábhárata, too, we find the same, for we are told: 'There is really no distinction between the four orders. The whole world at first consisted of Brábmanas. Created equally by Bráhma men have, in consequence of their acts, become distributed into different orders. They who became fond of indulging their desires and were addicted to pleasure and were of a severe and wrathful disposition, endowed with courage and unmindful of piety and worship . . . . those Bráhmans possessing the attributes of Rajas (passion) became Kshatriyas. Those Brahmans, again, who, without attending to the duties laid down for them, became possessed of the attributes of goodness (Satva) and passion, and took to the practice of rearing of cattle and agriculture, became Vaisyas. Those Bráhmans, again, who became fond of untruth and injuring others and engaged in impure acts and fallen from purity of behaviour, added to the attribute of darkness (Tamas), became Sudras. Separated by occupation Brahmanas became members of the other three orders. All the four orders have therefore the right of performing all pious acts and sacrifices. Even thus were the four orders created equally by Brahmá, who ordained for all of them the observances disclosed in the words of the Vedas." (Moksha Dharma, Chapter 188.) Krishna also declared in the Bhagvad Gita the fourfold division of caste to have been created according to the distinction of attributes and duties (IV-13), and it is said in another place in the Mahábhárata:"He in whom are seen truth, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, benevolence, observance of the duties of his order and mercy, is a Brahmana. Those characteristics that are present in a Brahmana are not present in a Sudra, nor do those that are seen in a Brahmana exist in a Sudra, and a Sudra is not a Sudra nor a Brahmana a Bráhmana except through his characteristics. He in whom are seen these virtues is a Bráhmana, and he should be

termed a Sudra in whom these qualities do not exist (even though he is a Bráhman by birth)." The objection that if Bráhmanhood fdepended upon the possession of certain attributes, the distinction of castes would disappear, was met with by saying that "character is the chief requisite, that so long as he is not initiated in the Vedas, every person is a Sudra, and that whoever conforms to the rules of pure and virtuous conduct is a Bráhmana." (Vana Parva, Chapter 180, verses 21, 25, 26, and 32.)

Claims of birth were, however, now and then asserted in the epic period, and in one place it is said in the Mahábhárata (Anusasana Parva, 29-1) that the "status of a Bráhmana can only be acquired by birth." And Vishwamitra, the Kshatriya King of Kanyakubja, was admitted to the status of a Bráhmana and King Vitahavya, who sought refuge in the asylum of the sage Bbrigu when pursued by Pratardana, the King of Kasi, was made a Bráhmana by the mere word of the rishi. (Anusasana Purva, Chapter 30.) These are typical in showing that birth alone did not determine one's caste in those days. The Brahmanas did, indeed, assert that whether "cognizant of the Vedas, or ignorant of them, whether pure or impure, Brahmanas are always to be honoured, they are like fire covered with ashes: just as fire, even if it is in a crematorium, is never impure, even so is a Brahman, whether he is wise or otherwise, always a superior god." (Vana Parva, Chapter 200, verses 88 and 89.) Yet these pretensions were never recognized in practice. On the contrary, it was declared "that the gods know him for a Bráhmana who has cast off anger and passion, who always speaks the truth here, who gratifies his preceptor, who, though himself injured, never returns the injury, who has his senses under control, who is virtuous, pure and devoted to the study of the Vedas, has subdued lust, is endowed with mental energy, is catholic in religion and looks upon all beings as himself." "It is neither birth nor study, nor learning that constitutes Brahmanhood. It is character which constitues it." (Vana Parva, Chapter 313, verse 108.) And it could not be otherwise with the highly developed intellect and the knowledge of their religious scriptures possessed by the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, and even by some of the Sudras of those times.

Caste in the Puranic and later Times.-It is only in the Puranic and later times, and not completely even then, that birth alone

of

was declared as determining one's caste. The Vishnu Purana in Book III, Chapter 8, declares that " he who observes the duties of his caste, does not vilify another in his presence or in bis absence, and does not speak an untruth, pleases Kesava (God) best," and the general duties of the four castes are declared by it to be "acquisition of wealth for the support of servants, begetting of children upon their wives, kindness towards all, patience, humility, truth, purity, contentment, courtesy, gentleness speech, friendliness, freedom from envy and avarice." The Sukra Niti, a modern work on polity, also says: "Good and bad conditions in life are due to Karma alone. Actions done in a previous life are called prarabdha. Can any one remain without action even for a moment? In this world no one is a Bráhmana, or a Kshatriya, or a Vaisya, or a Sudra, or a Mlechha by birth alone. Such distinctions are due to action and qualifications alone. Can all creatures be Brahmanas because they were created by Brahmá? The glory of Bráhmanhood cannot be acquired by colour nor from one's father. Those who by their knowledge, actions and meditations are engaged in the worship of the gods, who are of a peaceful disposition, having their senses under control and who are merciful, are Brahmanas from their attributes. Those who are skilled in protecting the people, are brave, keep their senses under control, are possessed of courage and are capable of controlling the wicked, are Kshatriyas. They who are skilled in sales and purchases, and always live by trade and are devoted to the rearing of cattle and agriculture, are known in the world as Vaishyas. They who are devoted to the service of the twice-born, are of a peaceful disposition, have their senses under control, and who carry ploughs, fuel and grass, are known as Sudras. Those who have relinquished the duties of their orders, are of a cruel disposition, bent upon injuring others, wrathful and killing others, and wanting in discrimination, are Mlechhas." (Sukra Niti I--37 to 44.) The Bráhmana, in short, was a Bráhmana by being the friend of all creatures (Maitro Bráhmana), the Kshatriya, a Kshatriya by protecting the people (Kshatattray ate), the Vaisya. a Vaishya by rearing cattle, and the Sudra, a Sudra by rendering service. Sacrifice of self for the good of others was the key-note of system of the caste, and it is said in the Máhábharata (Santi Parva, Chapter 60, verse 54) that there is nothing in the three