Chapter VIII. Āshramas

Volume II: Part I pp. 416–426

Chapter VIII. Āshramas

In the preceding pages several questions connected with brahmacarya have been dealt with. Brahmacarya is, according to the theory of the dharmasūtras and smṛtis, the first of the four āśramaṣ Therefore, before proceeding to the next saṁskāra, viz. vivāha (marriage) which is the starting point of the second āśrama, it is necessary to discuss the origin and development of the idea of āśramaṣ

From the times of the most ancient dharmasūtras the number of āśramas has been four, though there are slight differences in the nomenclature and in their sequence.¹ Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 21. 1 says 'there are four āśramas, viz. the stage of householder, (staying in) the teacher's house, stage of being a muni, the stage of being a forest dweller.' That here mauna stands for the āśrama of saṁnyāsa is clear from Āpastamba's own words in II. 9. 21. 7 (atha parivrājaḥ) where he employs the word 'parivrāj' to indicate 'mauna.' Āp. places the householder first among the āśramas, probably on account of the importance of that stage to all other āśramaṣ Why he should mention the stage of forest hermit last is not clear. Gaut. also (III. 2) enumerates the four āśramas as brahmacārī, gṛhastha, bhikṣu and vaikhānasa. Here also Gaut. speaks of bhikṣu before vaikhānasa and Haradatta ² explains this departure from the usual sequence of āśramas as due to the words in Gaut. 28. 47 where we read 'prāg-uttamād trayā āśramiṇah' (persons belonging to the three āśramas except the last may constitute a pariṣad), i. e. to exclude vaikhānasa from the pariṣad he is mentioned last. Why the vānaprastha is called vaikhānasa will be discussed later on under the former worḍ 'Vaṣ Dh. S. (VII. 1–2) names the four āśramas as brahmacārī, gṛhastha, vānaprastha and parivrājaka. Vaṣ Dh. S. (in XI. 34) employs the word yati to denote a person in the fourth āśrama. Bauḍ Dh. S. (II. 6.17) names the four *āśrama*s in the same way as Vasiṣṭha and vouchsafes the interesting information that it was the asura Kapila, son of Prahlāda, who in his rivalry with the gods, made these distinctions to which a wise man should pay no heeḍ What Bauḍ³ means appears to be that there is really one āśrama viz. that of the householder, that Kapila devised the scheme of four *āśrama*s, so that those who became vānaprasthas and parivrājakas would perform no yajñas and thereby the gods would lose the offerings they received from men and become less powerful. Manu VI. 87 speaks of the four *āśrama*s, the last being called yati by him and also ' samnyāsa ' (in VI. 96). It would thus be seen that a person who belongs to the last āśrama is variously called parivrāt or parivrājaka (one who does not stay in one place but wanders from place to place), bhikṣu (one who begs for his livelihood), muni (one who ponders over the mysteries of life and death), yati (one who controls his senses). These words suggest the various characteristics of the man who undertakes the fourth āśrama.

The theory of Manu about these *āśrama*s is as followṣ The span of human life is one hundred years ( śatāyur vai puruṣaḥ ). All do not live to that age, but that is the maximum age one can expect to reach. This should be divided into four partṣ As one cannot know beforehand what age one is going to reach, it is not to be supposed that these four parts are each of 25 yearṣ They may be more or lesṣ As stated in Manu IV. 1 the first part of man's life is brahmacarya in which he learns at his teacher's house and after he has finished his study, in the second part of his life he marries and becomes an householder, discharges his debts to his ancestors by begetting sons and to the gods by performing yajñas (Manu V. 169). When he sees that his head has grey hair and that there are wrinkles on his body he resorts to the forest i. e. becomes a vānaprastha (Manu VI. 1-2). After spending the third part of his life in the forest for some time he spends the rest of his life as a samnyāsin⁴ (Manu VI. 33). Similar rules are founḍ in many other smṛtis⁵ Bauḍ (Dh. S. II. 10. 5)⁶ states as his own opinion that the sages prescribe saṁnyāsa after the 70th year.

The word āśrama does not occur in the Saṁhitās or Brāh-maṇaṣ But this cannot be stretched to mean that the stages of life denoted by this word in the sūtras were unknown throughout the Vedic perioḍ It has been shown above (p. 268) that the word brahmacārī occurs in the Ṛgveda and the Atharvaveda and that brahmacarya is mentioned in the Tai. S., the Śat. Br. and other ancient Vedic workṣ So the stage of brahmacarya was well-known in the remotest past. The fact that Agni is said to be 'the gṛhapati in our house' (Ṛg. II. 1. 2)⁷ and the fact that in the famous verse (Ṛg. X. 85. 36) which is employed even to-day in the marriage ceremony the husband says to the bride when taking hold of her hand that the gods gave her to him for gārhaspatya (for attaining the position of a house-owner or householder) establish that the second stage of the householder was well-known to the Ṛgveda. There is nothing in the Vedic Literature expressly corresponding to the vānaprastha. It may however be stated that the Tāṇḍya Mahābrāhmaṇa 14. 4. 7 says that vaikhānasa sages were the favourites of Indra and that one Rahasya Devamalimlue killed them in a place called Munīmaraṇa. Vaikhānasas means 'vānaprastha' in the sūtras and it is possible that this is the germ of the idea of vāna-prastha. 'Yati' used in the sūtras and smṛtis to indicate the fourth āśrama of saṁnyāsa does occur in the oldest Vedic textṣ But there the meaning appears to be different. In the Ṛg. the word 'yati' occurs several timeṣ But the sense is doubtful. Ṛg. VIII. 3. 9 runs 'whereby⁸ when wealth was bes-towed on Bhṛgu and on yatis (or 'on Bhṛgu from yatis') you pro-tected Praskaṇva'. Ṛg. VIII. 6. 18 reads 'O Indra, the yatis and those who were Bhṛgus praised thee'; Ṛg. X. 72. 7 says 'O gods, when you filled the worlds as the yatis (did) you brought the sun hidden in the sea'. In the Tai.⁹ S. VI. 2.7.5 we read 'Indra threw yatis to the śālāvṛkas (hyaenas or wolves), they devoured them to the south of the Uttaravedi.' The same words and story occur in the Kāṭhaka saṃhitā VIII. 5, the Ait. Br. 35. 2 (prādāt) and the Kauṣīṭakī Up. III. 1; in the last Indra said to Pratardana 'do know me only; I regard this as the most beneficial thing to man that he should know me. I killed the three-headed Tvāṣṭra, I gave to the śālāvṛkas the Aruṇmukha yatiṣ' In the Kāṭhaka saṃhitā (IV. 10) and the Tai. S. II. 4. 9. 2 it is stated that the heads of the yatis when they were being devoured fell aside and they (the heads) became the kharjūras (date palms). Atharvaveda II. 5. 3. says 'Indra, who is quick in his attack, who is Mitra and who killed Vṛtra as he did the yatiṣ' In the Tāṇḍya Mahābrāhmaṇa VIII. 1. 4 Bṛhadgiri is said to be one of the three yatis who escaped from slaughter and who were then taken under his protection by Indra. All these passages taken together suggest that the yatis were people who had incurred the hostility of Indra, the patron of the Āryas, that they were slaughtered by the Āryas with the help of Indra and their bodies were thrown to the wolves and that they seem to have something to do with a country where the date-palm grew and that a few of them who escaped slaughter subsequently were won over and became the worshippers of Indra (and therefore in Ṛg. VIII. 6. 18 they are described as praising Indra). So originally they were probably beyond the pale of the Vedic Āryanṣ If there is any connection between yati and yātu (sorcery) which seems possible, the yatis were probably non-vedic sorcererṣ In the Ṛg. X. 136. 2, there is a reference¹⁰ to munis, who are wind-girt and who put on brownish dirt (dirty garments). In Ṛg. VIII. 17. 14 Indra is said to be the friend of munis (Indro muni-nām sakhā) and in Ṛg. X. 136. 4 muni is said to be the friend of all godṣ So it appears that even in the times of the Ṛgveda persons who led a life of poverty, contemplation and mortification were known, and were honoured and called munis, while persons corresponding to them among non-vedic people were probably called yatiṣ But in both these words there is no idea of a certain stage in a well-knit scheme of life. Perhaps the earliest reference to the four āśramas, though somewhat obscure, occurs in the Ait. Br. 33. 11 ‘what (use is there) of dirt, what use of antelope skin, what use of (growing) the beard, what is the use of tapas ? O! brāhmaṇas ! desire a son, he is a world that is to be highly praiseḍ’¹¹ Here it is clear that ajina refers to brahmacarya, śmaśrūṇi to vānaprastha (since accord- ing to Manu VI. 6 and Gaut. III. 33 the vānaprastha had to grow his hair, beard and nails). Therefore ‘malam’ and ‘tapas’ must be taken respectively as indicating the householder and the saṁnyāsiṇ A much clearer reference to three āśramas occurs in the Chāndogya¹² Up. II. 23. 1 ‘there are three branches of dharma, the first (is constituted by) sacrifice, study and charity (i. e. by the stage of householder), the second is (constituted by the performance of) tapas (i. e. the vānaprastha), the third is the brahmacārī staying in the house of his teacher and wearing himself out till death in the teacher’s house; all these attain to the worlds of the meritorious; but one who (has correctly understood brahma) and abides in it attains immortality’. Tapas is a characteristic of both vānaprastha and parivrājaka. Therefore in this passage it is possible to hold that the three āśramas (of student, householder and vāna- prastha) are mentioneḍ The last clause about ‘brahmasaṁstha’ differentiates the three āśramas from him who has knowledge of brahma and holds fast by it. That portion says that the consequence of the knowledge of brahma is immortality; but it does not say expressly or impliedly that the stage of parivrājaka is a means of attaining the knowledge of brahma. So one may doubt whether samnyāsa as an āśrama is spoken of here, but there can be no doubt that the other three are clearly indicated here. Probably in the time of the Chāndogya there was no clear line of demarcation between the āśramas of vānaprastha and samnyāsa and they rather coalesced into each other. Chāṇ Up. V. 10. 1 and Br. Up. VI. 2. 15 support this conclusion¹³. In the Br. Up. III. 5. 1 there is a reference to brāhmaṇas who on apprehending correct- ly the Supreme Spirit turn away from the desires of progeny, wealth and of securing holy worlds and practise begging. Begging is a characteristic of samnyāsa in the sūtraṣ yajña- valkya in the Br. Up. IV. 5. 2. tells his wife Maitreyī that he was going into a life of pravrajyā from being a householder. Mundaka Up. I. 2. 11 refers to begging for him who has know- ledge of brahma and Mundaka III. 2. 6 mentions 'samnyāsa'. In the Jābālopaniṣad ¹⁴ (4) it is said that Janaka asked yajña- valkya to expound samnyāsa and then the four āśramas are distinctly set out 'after finishing the stage of student-hood, one should become a householder; after becoming a householder one should become a forest-dweller, after being a forest-dweller, one should renounce the world; or he may do otherwise viz. he may renounce the world after the stage of student-hood itself or after being an householder or from the forest. ( The very day on which he becomes desireless, he should renounce the world ( become a samnyāsin )'. Probably this passage¹⁵ was not before the author of the Vedāntasūtra or he did not regard the Jābālopaniṣad as very authoritative; otherwise there would hardly have been any need for the Vedāntasūtrakāra (in the Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 18–20) to hold a discussion on Chāndogya II. 23. 1.

It is clear that in the times of the earliest Upaniṣads at least three (if not four) āśramas were known and that all four were known by their specific names to the Jābālopaniṣaḍ In the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad (VI. 21) we have the word ‘atyāśramibhyaḥ’. It is said there that the sage Śvetāśvatara, who acquired knowledge of Brahma, proclaimed the knowledge to those who had risen above the mere observances of āśramaṣ

No scholar Eastern or Western places Pāṇini later than 300 B. C. He knew Bhikṣu-sūtras composed by Parāśarya and Karmanda¹⁶ and he tells us that the word ‘maskarin’¹⁷ means parivrājaka. As sūtra works about ‘bhikṣus’ were composed before Pāṇini, this āśrama of bhikṣus must have been an established institution centuries before Pāṇini. Buddhism took over this mode of life (pabbajjā as the Pāli works say) from the brahmanical systeṃ

It has been already stated at p. 8 that the goals of existence were deemed to be four, viz. dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa. The highest goal was mokṣa. All ancient Indian philosophy (whether Vedānta, Sāṁkhya or Nyāya) held that liberation from the never-ending cycle of births and deaths, and escape from the three kinds of duḥkha were the highest gooḍ The summum bonum consisted in non-return (anāvṛttih) to the world of pleasures and sorrowṣ The Chāṇ Up.¹⁸ VIII. 15. 1 winds up with the words ‘and he does not return’. The Bṛ. Up. VI. 2. 15, Praśna Up. I. 10 and others say the same. This supreme goal had fascinated all noble minds in whatever sphere of life they might have been working. The greatest poet and dramatist of classical Sanskrit ends his most famous drama (the Śākuntala) with the prayer ‘may self-existent God Śiva destroy for me rebirth’.¹⁹ This state of liberation or release is variously called mokṣa or mukti, anṛtatva, niḥśreyasa, kaivalya (by the Sāṁkhyas) or apavarga (Nyāyasūtra I. 1. 2). For attaining this state man must know and realize that there is only one Reality underlying all existence (and no plurality) and become disgusted with the passions and temptations of the world i. e. he must have nirveda and vairāgya (as stated in the Br. Up. III. 5. 1 or Mundaka I. 2. 12). Merely reading from the books that desirelessness is necessary for release and immediately giving up the world would not serve the purpose. The man would be hankering, as the Bhagavadgītā says, after pleasures he has renounceḍ Therefore the ancient Indian writers devised according to their lights a scheme which is embodied in the theory and practice of the āśramaṣ In brahma- cārya the individual goes through the discipline of the will and the emotions, makes himself acquainted with the literary treasures of the past and learns obedience, respect, plain living and high thinking. Then he marries, becomes a householder, tastes the pleasures of the world, enjoys life, has sons, dis- charges his duties to his children, to his friends, relatives and neighbours and becomes a useful, industrious and worthy citizen, the founder of a family. It is supposed that by the time he is fifty years or so he has become convinced of the futility of human appetites and the pleasures of the world and is, therefore, called upon to resort to a forest life for pondering over the great problem of the life hereafter and to accustom himself to self-abnegation, austerities and a harmless life. This would lead on to the last stage, viz. samnyāsa. He may succeed in this very life in realizing the supreme goal of mokṣa or he may have to continue to rise in spiritual height until after several births and deaths the goal is in view. The theory of varṇa dealt with man as a member of the Aryan society and laid down what his rights, functions, privileges, responsibilities and duties were as a member of that society. It was addressed to man in the masṣ The theory of āśramas addressed itself to the individual. It tells him what his spiri- tual goal is, how he is to order his life and what preparations are required to attain that goal. The theory of āśramas was truly a sublime conception and if owing to the exigencies of the times, the conflicts of interests and distractions of life, the scheme could not even in ancient times be carried out fully by every individual and seems to have failed in modern times, the fault does not lie with the originators of this conceptioṇ Deussen was constrained to say (in E. R. E. under āśrama) 'how far the practice corresponded to this theory given in Manu and other law books, we do not know but we are free to confess that in our opinion the whole history of mankind has not much that equals the grandeur of this thought ' and again in 'The Philosophy of the Upaniṣads' (tr. by Geden, 1906) p. 367 'the entire history of mankind does not produce much that approaches in grandeur to this thought '.

The three āśramas of householder, forest hermit and samnyāsa will be dealt with in detail hereafter. Only one question about āśramas in general remains to be discusseḍ With reference to the four āśramas, there are three different points of view (pakṣas) viz. samuccaya (orderly co-ordination), vikalpa (option) and bādha (annulment or contradiction). Those who hold the first view (samuccaya) say that a person can resort to the four āśramas one after another in order and that he cannot drop any one or more and pass on to the next nor can he resort to the householder's life after becoming a samnyāsin (vide Dakṣa I. 8-9, Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 40) e. g. a man cannot take samnyāsa immediately after brahmacarya. Manu (IV, 1, VI. 1, 33-37, 87-88) is the prime supporter of this view. The first part of the Jābālopaniṣad quoted above refers to this view. This view does not regard marriage and sexual life as impure or inferior to asceticism and on the contrary places it on a higher plane than asceticisṃ On the whole the tendency of most of the dharmaśāstra works is to glorify the status of an house-holder and push into the background the two āśramas of vānaprastha and samnyāsa, so much so that certain works say that these are forbidden in the Kali age. The second view is that there is an option after brahmacarya i. e. a man may become a parivrājaka immediately after he finishes his study or immediately after the householder's way of life. This view is put forward by the Jābālopaniṣad as an alternative to the first view of samuccaya. This is the view also of Vasiṣṭha VII. 3, Laghu Viṣṇu III. 1, and Yāj. III. 56. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 9. 21. 7-8 and II. 9. 22. 7-8) seems to favour this view. The third view of bādha is held by the ancient dharmaśūtras of Gautama ²⁰ and Baudhāyana. They hold that there is really one āśrama viz. that of the householder (brahmacarya being only prepara-tory to it) and that the other āśramas are inferior to that of the householder. Vide Gautama (III. 1 and 35) where he first refers to the view about vikalpa (option) and emphatically says that there is only one āśrama. Manu VI. 89-90, III. 77-80, Vaṣ Dh. S. VIII. 14-17, Dakṣa II. 57-60, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 59. 29 and many others praise the āśrama of householder as the highest. Bauḍ Dh. S. (II. 6. 29 ff) says the same as Gautama and it relies ²¹ upon the fact that the āśramas other than that of householder do not beget offspring and quotes Vedic passages viz. ‘may we, O Agni, attain immortality through progeny’ (Ṛg. V. 4. 10=Tai. S. I. 4. 46. 1) and ‘a brāhmaṇa when born is born involved in three debts, viz. he owes brahmacarya to the sages, sacrifice to the gods, and progeny to pitrs’ (Tai. S. VI. 3. 10. 5). According to Brahmasūtra III. 4. 18 Jaimini held this view, while Bādarāyaṇa seems to have been of the opinion that all āśramas are enjoined (ibiḍ III. 4. 19-20). Those who hold this view (bādha) rely on such Vedic passages ²² as ‘one should offer agnihotra as long as life lasts’ or ‘indeed Agni- hotra is a satra (sacrificial session) that lasts till one dies by old age’ (Śat. Br. XII. 4. 1. 1), ‘one should desire to live a hundred years performing religious acts’ (Vāj. S. 40. 2), ‘after bringing to the teacher wealth desired by him, do not cut off the thread of progeny’ (Tai. Up. I. 11. 1). The Mit. on Yāj. III. 56 sets out these three views and says that each is support- ed by Vedic texts and one may follow any one of the three. Ap. Dh. S. (II. 9. 21. 2) held the view that whatever āśrama out of ♦ four one followed, one attained happiness if one performed its duties according to the śāstra and after a lengthy discussion Ap. arrives at the conclusion that there is no distinction due to superiority among the four āśramas ²³. There were some who thought that the householder’s life was the rule and the other āśramas were for the blind and other incapable personṣ The Mit. on Yāj. III. 56 refutes this view.

The word āśrama is derived ²⁴ from ‘śram’ to exert, to labour and etymologically means ‘a stage in which one exerts oneself’. Commentators like Sarvajña-Nārāyaṇa on Manu VI. 35 endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the three views set out above as follows: the view that a man may pass on to saṁnyāsa immediately after the period of student-hood (without being a householder) applies only to those men who are, owing to the impressions and effects of restrained conduct in past lives, entirely free from desires and whose tongue, sexual appetites, belly and words are thoroughly under control; the prescriptions of Manu enjoining on men not to resort to saṁnyāsa without paying off the three debts are concerned with men whose appetites have not yet thoroughly been brought under control and the words of Gautama that there is only one āśrama (that of the house-holder) relate only to those whose appetites for worldly pleasures and pursuits are quite keeṇ