Chapter XXVII. Vānaprastha (forest hermit)

Volume II: Part II pp. 917–929

Chapter XXVII. Vānaprastha (forest hermit)

VĀNAPRSTHA (forest hermit) Vaikhānasa appears to have been the ancient name for Vānaprastha. In the Anukramaṇī one hundred Vaikhānasas are said to have been the seers of Ṛg. IX. 66 and a Vamra Vaikhānasa is the seer of Ṛg. X. 99. The Tai. Ā. I. 23 connects the word Vaikhānasa with the nakhas of Prajāpati (ye nakhās te vaikhānasāḥ)¹. It appears that in ancient times there was some work called Vaikhānasa śāstra which treated of the rules for forest hermitṣ Gaut. III. 2 uses the word Vaikhānasa for this āśrama. Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 6. 19 defines a vānaprastha² as one who follows the practices laid down in Vaikhānasa-śāstra. Vṛddha-Gautama (chap. VIII, p. 564) appears to suggest that Vaikhānasas and Pāñcarātrikas were two schools of Vaiṣṇavas, the former calling Viṣṇu by the appellations of Puruṣa, Acyuta and Aniruddha, while the Pāñcarātrikas spoke of Viṣṇu as having the four mūrtis or vyūhas viz. Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha³. The Par. M. vol. I, part 2, p. 139 after quoting Vaṣ Dh. S. 9. 11 (śrāmaṇakenāgnimādhaya) remarks that Śrāmaṇaka is Vaikhānasa-sūtra that propounds the duties of tapasvinṣ Kālidāsa in the Śākuntala speaks of the life led by the charming Śakuntala in Kaṇva's hermitage as vaikhānasa vrata⁴ (I. 27). Manu VI. 21 describes the Vānaprastha as abiding by the views (mata) of Vaikhānasa and Medhātithi explains that Vaikhānasa is a śāstra in which the duties of the forest hermit are expoundeḍ The Mahā- bhārata⁹¹⁹ (Śānti 20. 6 and 26. 6) states that the view of the Vaikhānasas is that it is better to have no desire for amassing wealth than to hanker after wealth. Śaṅkarācārya on Vedānta-sūtra III. 4. 20 speaks of the third āśrama as vaikhānasa and as indicated by the word tapas used in Chāṇ Up. II. 23. 1.

The word vānaprastha is according to the Mit. the same as vanaprastha, which means 'one who stays in a forest in a pre-eminent way' (by observing a strict code of life). Kṣīra-svāmī derives it differently.⁹²⁰

The time for becoming a forest hermit arises in two wayṣ According to the Jābālopaniṣad quoted above (p. 421) a man may become a vānaprastha immediately after the period of student-hood or after passing some years as an householder. Manu (VI.2) indicates the age by saying 'when a householder sees his skin wrinkled and his hair growing white and sees the sons of his sons he may betake himself to the forest'. The commentators were divided in their opinions, some holding that all three conditions (wrinkles, grey hair and seeing son's sons) must be fulfilled before one could become a forest hermit, others held that only one of them need be fulfilled and others again said that these conditions are only indicative of the age viz. that a man must be old or over 50. Kullūka on Manu III. 50 quotes a smṛti 'a man may resort to a forest after 50'.

Gaut. III. 25-34, Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 21. 18—II. 9. 23. 2, Bauḍ Dh. S. III. 3, Vaṣ Dh. S. IX, Manu VI. 1-32, Yāj. III. 45-55, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 95, Vaik. X. 5, Śaṅkha-smṛti VI. 1-7 (in verse), Śāntiparva 245. 1-14 and Anuśāsana 142, Aśvamedhika-parva 46. 9-16, Laghu-Viṣṇu III, Kūrmapurāṇa (uttarārdha chap. 27) contain numerous rules about forest hermitṣ The principal points are stated below with a few references:

(1) One may go to a forest with one's wife or one may leave her in charge of one's sons (Manu VI. 3, Yāj. III. 45). The wife may accompany if she desireṣ Medhātithi notes that some explained that if the wife was young he may place her in charge of the sons and that an old wife may accompany her husbanḍ (2) He takes with him to the forest his three Vedic fires and his gṛhya fire⁷ together with such sacrificial utensils as the ladles called sruc, sruva. Ordinarily the wife's co-operation is required in offering sacrifices, but when the wife is given in charge of the sons, her co-operation then is supposed to be dispensed with or it may be held that she has consented to all acts by agreeing to stay with the sonṣ On repairing to the forest he should perform the śrauta sacrifices of new moon and full moon, the āgrayana iṣṭi, the cāturmāsyas, Turāyana and Dākṣāyana (Manu VI. 4. 9-10, Yaj. III. 45 ). The sacrificial food was to be prepared from corn like nīvāra growing in the forest. It appears that according to some writers the forest hermit was to give up his śrauta and gṛhya fires and kindle a new fire in accordance with rules laid down in the śrāmapaka⁸ (i. e. the Vaikhānasasūtra) and offer sacrifices thereiṇ Vide Gaut. III. 26, Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 21. 20 and Vaṣ Dh. S. IX. 10.⁹ Ultimately he is to leave the keeping of fires by depositing the sacred fires in his own self according to the rules prescribed ( in Vaikhānasa sūtra ). Vide Manu VI. 25, Yāj. III. 45.

(3) He has to give up all food that he used to partake of when he was in his village and also all household paraphernalia (cows, horses, beds &c.) and subsist on flowers, fruits, roots and vegetables growing in the forest on land or in water or on corn fit for sages such as nīvāra and śyāmāka (Manu VI. 5 and 13, Gaut. III. 26 and 28). But he has to avoid partaking of honey, flesh, mushrooms growing on the ground, and the vegetables called Bhūstṛṇa, Śigruka, the Śleṣmātaka fruit, though these are forest produce (Manu VI. 14). Gautama allowed him as a last resort to partake of the flesh of animals killed by carnivorous beastṣ Yāj. III. 54–55, Manu VI. 27–28 allow him to beg for alms at the dwellings of other hermits or allow him to go to a village and bring by begging silently eight morsels of fooḍ He can use salt prepared by himself only (Manu VI. 12).

(4) He has to perform the five daily sacrifices to gods, sages, Manes, men (guests) and to bhūtas with food fit for ascetics or with fruits, roots and vegetables and give alms thereout (Manu VI. 5 and 7, Gaut. III. 29–30, Yāj. III. 46).

(5) He has to bathe thrice in the day, in the morning, at noon and in the evening (Manu VI. 22 and 24, Yāj. III. 48, Vaṣ IX. 9); while Manu VI. 6 appears to prescribe a bath twice a day only in the morning and in the evening. So there was an optioṇ

(6) He was to wear a deer-skin or a tattered garment (i.e. one of bark or kuśa grass or the like) and allow his hair and nails to grow. Vide Manu VI. 6, Gaut. III. 34, Vaṣ IX. 11.

(7) He should be devoted to the study of the Veda and recite it inaudibly (Āp. Dh. S. II 9. 22. 9, Manu VI. 8, Yāj. III. 48).

(8) He should live a life of complete continence, should be self-restrained, friendly (to all), collected in mind, ever liberal but never a recipient and be compassionate towards all beings (Manu VI. 8, Yāj. III. 45 and 48). In view of Yāj. III. 45, Vaṣ IX. 5 and Manu VI. 26, Kullūka seems ²¹²⁴ to be wrong in holding that if a forest hermit takes his wife with him he may cohabit with her at the prescribed timeṣ

(9) He is not to use corn growing on ploughed land in the forest even if the owner neglects to garner it nor is he to eat fruits and roots growing in villages ( Manu VI. 16 and Yaj. III. 46 ).

(10) He may cook wild corn or he may eat only what becomes naturally ripe ( like fruits ) or he may pound between stones the grain to be used by him, or may employ his teeth only as mortar and he is not to employ ghee in his cooking or religious rites but only the oil of wild fruits ( Manu VI. 17 and Yaj. III. 49 ).

(11) He is to eat only once either in the day in the 4th part ( of the day divided into eight ) or at night or he may take food every alternate day or once after two or three days ( Viṣṇu Dh. S. 95. 5-6, Manu VI. 19 ). He may also follow the method of the penance of Cāndrāyaṇa ( stated in Manu XI. 216) or he may subsist on wild fruits, roots and flowers only ( Manu VI. 20-21, Yaj. III. 50 ) or may eat only once at the end of a fortnight ( according to one's ability ). He may reduce gradually the quantity of food he takes, ultimately subsisting on water alone or on wind ( Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 23. 2, Manu VI. 31 ). Vide Viṣṇu Dh. S. 95. 7-12 also.

(12) He may accumulate food materials only for a day or a month or a year ( but never for more than a year ) and should throw away his stored food material every year in the month of Āśvina ( Manu VI. 15, Yaj. III. 47, Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 22. 24 ).¹¹

(13) He should practise severe austerities by standing in the midst of five fires ( 4 fires in the four directions and the blazing sun overhead), by standing in the open in the rains, by wearing wet garments in winter (Manu VI. 23-34, Yaj. III. 52, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 95. 2-4) and thus habituate his body to privations and mortificationṣ

(14) He should gradually give up residing in a house, but should stay under a tree and subsist only on fruits and roots¹² ( Manu VI. 25, Vaṣ IX. 11, Yaj. III. 54, Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 21. 20 ). (15) At night he should sleep on the bare ground, should pass the day either sitting or moving about or in the practice of Yoga and should make no effort to enjoy the things that give pleasures ( Manu VI. 22 and 26, Yāj. III. 51 ).

(16) He should study the various texts of the Upaniṣads for the purity of his body, for the increase of his knowledge and ultimately for realising brahma ( Manu VI. 29–30).

(17) If the forest hermit suffers from some incurable disease and cannot properly perform his duties or feels death to be near, he should start on the great journey ( Mahāpra sthāna) turning his face towards the north-east, subsisting on water and air only, till the body falls to rise no more ( Manu VI. 31, Yāj. III. 55). The Mit. and Aparārka (p. 945) on Yāj. III. 55 quote a smṛti ‘a forest hermit may resort to the distant journey or may enter water or fire or may throw him self from a precipice’.¹³

The Bauḍ Dh. S. III. 3 gives an intricate classification of vānaprasthaṣ They are either pacamānakas (who take cooked or ripe food) or apacamānakas (who do not cook their food). Each of these two classes is again sub-divided into five. The five pacamānakas are sarvāran yākas, vaițusikas, those who subsist on fruits, roots and bulbous roots, those who subsist on fruits only, those who subsist on vegetables only. Sarvaran yākas are of two kinds, viz. indrāvasiktas (who bring creepers, shrubs and cook them, offer agnihotra therewith and offer it to guests and eat the rest) and reto-vasiktas (who bring the flesh of animals killed by tigers, wolves or hawks and cook it and offer to Agni &c. ). The apacamānakas are five viz. unmajjkas (who do not employ implements of iron or stone for holding food), pravrttāsinah (who eat food from their hands, without using any vessel ), mukhenādāyinah (who eat food with their mouth, without using their hands, as beasts do ), toyāhāras (who subsist on water only), vāyubhaksāh (who observe total fast). These are according to Bauḍ the ten dīksās of Vaikhānasaṣ Manu also (VI. 29) calls the rules to be observed by forest hermits dīksāṣ

Brhat-Parāśara (chap. XI p. 290) speaks of four divisions of vānaprasthas viz. Vaikhānasa, Udumbara, Valakhilya and Vanevāsi; while Vaikh. VIII. 7 says that the vānaprasthas are either sapatnika ( who stay with their wife ) or apatnika and the first are of four varieties viz. Audumbara, Vairīñca, Vālakhiilya and Phenapa. The Rāmāyaṇa ( Araṇya, chap. 10. 2–6 ) speaks of forest hermits under various designations such as the Vālakhiilyas, Așmakuṭṭas &c.

Any person of the three higher varṇas could become a vānaprastha, but a śūdra could not do so. Manu VI. 1 when starting the topic of vānaprasthas employs the word ‘ dvija ’. In the Śāntiparva 21. 15 it is stated that a kṣatriya after trans- ferring the kingdom to his son should subsist in a forest on wild food and follow the śrāvaṇa scriptureṣ¹⁴ In the Āśva- medhika-parva 35. 43 it is expressly stated that the order of vānaprasthas is meant for the three dvijātiṣ¹⁵ The Mahābhārata cites many examples of royal personages becoming vānapras- thaṣ Yayāti after crowning his youngest and most dutiful son Pūru as a king is said to have become a forest hermit ( Ādiparva 86. 1 ) where he practised various austerities ( Ādi. 86. 12–17 ) and ultimately ended his life by fasting ( Ādi. 75. 58 ). In the Āśramavāsī-parva ( chap. 19 ) the blind king Dhṛtarāṣṭra is said to have become a forest hermit with his wife Gāndhārī who put on bark garments and deer-skiṇ The Par. M. ( I. part 2, p. 139 ) relying on Manu VI. 2, Yama and other sages states its view that men of the three varṇas could become forest hermitṣ Women also could repair to the forest. The Mausala parva-(7. 74) states that when Kṛṣṇa left the mortal body, Satyabhāmā and other queens of Kṛṣṇa entered the forest having resolved to undergo severe austeritieṣ The Ādiparva ( 128. 12–13 ) narrates that, on the death of Pāṇḍu, Satyavatī with her two daughters-in-law repaired to a forest for austerities and died there. Vide also Śānti 147. 10 ( for Mahāprasthāna ) and Āśramavāsīparva. 37. 27–28. According to Vaik. VIII. 1 and Vāmanapurāṇa 14. 117–118 a brāhmaṇa could pass through all four āśramas, a kṣatriya through three ( he could not be a sannyāsin ), a vaiśya through two (brahmacarya and gārhasthya) and a śūdra could resort to only one viz. the householder's mode of life. Vide the story of Sambuka referred to above (p. 119 ).

The question whether ending one's life by starting on the Great Journey or by falling from a precipice is sinful exercised the minds of many writers on dharmaśāstra. The Dharmaśāstra writers generally condemn suicide or an attempt to commit suicide as a great siṇ Parāśara (IV. 1-2) states that if a man or woman hangs himself or herself through extreme pride or extreme rage or through affliction or fear he or she falls into hell for sixty thousand yearṣ¹⁶ Manu V. 89 says that no water is to be offered for the benefit of the souls of those who kill them- selveṣ The Ādiparva (179. 20) declares that one who commits suicide does not reach blissful worldṣ Vaṣ Dh. S. (23. 14-16) ordains “whoever kills himself becomes abhiśasta (guilty of mortal sin) and his sapiṇḍas have to perform no death rites for him; a man becomes a killer of the self when he destroys himself by wood (i. e. by fire), water, clods and stones (i. e. by striking his head against a stone), weapon, poison, or ropes (i. e. by hanging). They also quote a verse 'that dvija who through affection performs the last rites of a man who commits suicide must undergo the penance of Cāndrāyaṇa with Tāpta-kṛcchra'. Vaṣ Dh. S. 23. 18 prescribes a prāyaścitta for merely resolving to kill oneself (even when no attempt is made). Yama (20-21) prescribes that when a person tries to do away with himself by such methods as hanging, if he dies, his body should be smeared with impure things and if he lives he should be fined two hundred paṇas; his friends and sons should each be fined one paṇa and then they should undergo the penance laid down in the śāstra.¹⁷

In spite of this general attitude, exceptions were made in the smṛtis, the epics and purāṇaṣ When a man was guilty of brāhmaṇa murder, he was allowed to meet death at the hands of archers in a battle who knew that the sinner wanted to be killed in that way as a penance or the sinner may throw himself head downwards in fire (Manu XI. 73, Yaj. III. 248). Similarly the drinker of spirituous liquor expiated his sin by taking boiling wine, water, ghee, cow's milk or urine and dying thereby (Manu XI. 90-91, Yaj. III. 253, Gaut. 23. 1, Vaṣ Dh. S. 20. 22). Vide also Vaṣ Dh. S. 13. 14, Gaut. 23. 1, Āp. Dh. S. I. 9. 25. 1-3 and 6 for similar deadly penances for incest and for drinking liquor and for theft. The Āp.Dh.S. (I.10.28. 15-17) quotes Hārita who condemns such penances involving death.¹⁸ At extremely holy places like Prayāga, the Sarasvati and Benares persons were allowed to kill themselves by drowning with the desire of securing release from saṁsāra. The Śalyaparva (39. 33-34) states 'whoever abandons his body at Pṛthūdaka on the northern bank of the Sarasvati after repeating Vedic prayers would not be troubled by death thereafter'.¹⁹ The Anuśāsanaparva (25. 62-64) says that if a man knowing the Vedānta and understanding the ephemeral nature of life abandons life in the holy Himālayas by fasting, he would reach the world of brahma. Vide also Vanaparva 85. 83 (about suicides at Prayāga). The Matsya-purāṇa (186. 34-35) eulogises the peak of Amarakantaka by stating 'whoever dies at Amarakantaka by fire, poison, water or by fasting enjoys the pleasures (described in verses 28-33). He who throws himself down (from the peaks of Amarakantaka) never returns (to saṁsāra ).²⁰ There are historical examples of this practice supplied by Epigraphy. The Khairha plates of Yaśahkarnadeva (dated Kalacuri saṁvat 823 i. e. 1073 A. D.) narrate that king Gāngeya obtained release along with his one hundred wives at the famous banyan tree of Prayāga ( E. I. vol. XII. p. 205 at p. 211 ).²¹ King Dhangadeva of the Chandella dynasty is said to have lived for more than 100 years and to have abandoned his body at Prayāga while contemplating on Rudra ( E. I. vol. I. p. 140 ). The Cālúkya king Someśvara after performing yoga rites drowned himself in the Tuṅgabhadrā in 1068 A. D. (E. C. vol. II. Sk. 136). The Raghuvaṁśa VIII. 94 poetically describes how Aja in his old age when his health was shattered by disease resorted to fasting and drowned himself at the confluence of the holy rivers, the Gaṅges and the Śarayū, and immediately attained the position of a denizen of Heaveṇ

Apart from suicide for purposes of penance or at holy places the smṛtis allowed, as said above, a forest hermit to start on the great journey to meet death and also allowed in certain circumstances death by entering fire, or by drowning or by fasting or by throwing oneself from a precipice even for those who were not hermitṣ Gautama (14. 11) prescribes that no mourning need be observed for those who wilfully meet death by fasting, or by cutting themselves off with a weapon, or by fire, or poison or water or by hanging or by falling from a precipice. But Atri (218-219) states some exceptions viz. 'if one who is very old (beyond 70), one who cannot observe the rules of bodily purification (owing to extreme weakness &c.), one who is so ill that no medical help can be given, kills himself by throwing himself from a precipice or into fire or water or by fasting, mourning should be observed for him for three days and śrāddha may be performed for hiṃ²² Aparārka (p. 536) quotes texts of Brahmagarbha, Vivasvat and Gārgya about an householder ‘he who suffering from serious illness cannot live, or who is very old, who has no desire left for the pleasures of any of the senses and who has carried out his tasks may bring about his death at his pleasure by resorting to mahāprasthāna, by entering fire or water or by falling from a precipice. By so doing he incurs no sin and his death is far better than tapas, and one should not desire to live vainly (without being able to perform the duties laid down by the śāstra).²³ Aparārka (p. 877) and Par. M. (I. part 2, p. 228) quote several verses from Ādipurāṇa about dying by fasting, by entering fire or deep water or by falling from a precipice, or by going on mahā- prasthāna in the Himālayas or by abandoning life from the branch of the vața tree at Prayāga, the verses declaring that not only does such a man not incur sin but he attains the worlds of blisṣ In the Rāmāyapa (Aranya, chap. 9) Śara- bhanga is said to have entered fire. We find that the Mṛccha- kațika (I. 4) speaks of king Śūdraka as having entered fire. In the Gupta Inscriptions No. 42, the great Emperor Kumāra- gupta is said to have entered the fire of dried cowdung cakeṣ The editor remarks that there is necessarily no reference to the fact that the emperor voluntarily embraced death by fire. But it appears that there is no great propriety in the description if all that is meant is that the Emperor's corpse was burnt with ‘karișa’.

Some put forward a Vedic passage ‘one who desires heaven should not (seek to) die before the appointed span of life is at an end (of itself)’ as opposed to the permission for suicide given by the smṛtis Medhātithi on Manu VI. 32 ²⁴ quotes this Vedic text and explains it away by saying that if śruti intended to lay down an absolute prohibition against suicide in every case, it would have simply said ‘one who desires heaven should not (seek to) die’. The Vaj. S. (40. 3) contains a verse saying ‘whoever destroy their self reach after death Asura worlds that are shrouded in blinding darkness’, which really refers to persons ignorant of the correct knowledge of the Self. But this has been interpreted by many as referring to those guilty of suicide (ātmahan). Vide Uttararāmacarita IV, after verse 3 ²⁵ and Bṛ. Up. IV. 4. 11 for a verse similar to that in the Vaj. S. The Rājataraṅgiṇī (VI. 1411) refers to officers appointed by the king to superintend prāyopaveśa (resolving on death by fasting).

Among Jains a similar rule prevaileḍ The Ratnakaraṇḍa- śrāvakācāra (chap. 5) of Samantabhadra (about 2nd century A. D.) dilates on Sallekhanā, which consists in abandoning the body for the accumulation of merit in calamities, famines, extreme old age and incurable disease.²⁶ The Kālandri (Sirohi State) Inscription records the suicide of a Jain con gregation by fasting in saṁvat 1339 ( E. I. vol. XX., appendix p. 98 No. 691 ).

From the account of the death of Kalanos the Indian gymnosophist at 73 given by Megasthenes (Mc Crindle p. 106) we can gather that the practice of religious suicide prevailed long before the 4th century B. C. Strabo (XV. 1. 4) states that with the ambassadors that came to Augustus Cæsar from India also arrived an Indian gymnosophist who committed himself to the flames like Kalanos who exhibited the same spectacle before Alexander.

In the times of the purāṇas the method of starting on mahā prasthāna and suicide by entering fire or falling from a preci piece came to be forbidden and was included in Kalivarjya.²⁷

It will be noticed that some of the duties and regulations prescribed for vānaprasthas are practically the same as those for sannyāsinṣ For example, the rules laid down in Manu VI. 25-29 for forest hermits are almost the same as those for parivrājakas²⁸ (Manu VI. 38, 43, 44). The Ap. Dh. S. employs the same words twice in delineating the characteristics of both (II. 9. 21. 10 and 20). The order of hermits gradually leads on to or rather passes over into that of sannyāsinṣ Both have to observe celibacy and restraint of senses, both have to regulate the intake and quality of food, both have to contemplate on the passages of the Upaniṣads and strive for the knowledge of Brahmaṇ There were no doubt some differenceṣ The vāna prastha could be accompanied by his wife at least in the begin ning, a sannyāsin could not be so. A vānaprastha had to keep fires, perform the daily and other yajñas at least in the begin ning, the sannyāsin gave up his fireṣ The vānaprastha had to concentrate upon tapas, upon inuring himself to privations, severe austerities, and self-mortification, while the sannyāsin was concerned principally with saṃyama (restraint or quiescence of senses) and contemplation of the highest Reality, as stated by Śaṅkarācārya on Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 20.²⁹ Owing to the great similarity and virtual fusion of the two āśramas the stage of vānaprastha came to be gradually ignored and people passed from the householder's life directly to the life of saṃnyāsa. Govindasvāmī on Bauḍ Dh. S. III. 3. 14–17 remarks that the ācārya (Baudhāyana) should be asked why he describes the two orders of vānaprastha and saṃnyāsa as distinct.³⁰ In course of time no one probably became a vānaprastha and therefore having recourse to the stage of vānaprastha came to be forbidden in the Kali age.³¹