Chapter XXVIII. Sannyāsa

Volume II: Part II pp. 930–975

Chapter XXVIII. Sannyāsa

SANNYĀSA.—(the order of ascetics). That the Chāṇ Up. was well aware of the three āśramas of student-hood, house- holder and forest hermit has been shown above (p. 420 ). It is somewhat doubtful whether the Chāṇ Up. regarded sannyāsa as the fourth and the last stage in a man's life when ideally planneḍ It merely states that ‘one that holds fast by the realization of brahman attains immortality’. But it appears that a stage of the abandonment of worldly riches, a life of begging and contemplation of the Absolute and its reali- zation had been known to the earliest Upaniṣads like the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. Whether it was the fourth stage or whether it could be reached even in the stage of brahmacarya or of a house-holder is left in doubt so far as the older Upaniṣads are concerneḍ The Jābālopaniṣad (4) has been quoted above (p. 421) to show that it gave an option either to regard sannyāsa as the 4th stage in a man’s life or to resort to it immediately after any of the first two āśramaṣ

In the Bṛ. Up. (II. 4. 1) we see that Yājñavalkya ¹ when about to become a parivrājaka (a wandering ascetic) tells his wife Maitreyī that he was going to leave home and that he wanted to divide whatever wealth he had between her and her co-wife Kātyāyanī. This shows that a parivrājaka had even then to leave home and wife and to give up all belongingṣ The same Upaniṣad in another place (III. 5. 1) states ‘those who realize Ātman give up the hankering after progeny, possessions and heavenly worlds and practise the beggar’s mode of life; therefore the brāhmaṇa, having completely mastered (and so risen beyond) mere learning, should seek to be like a child (i. e. should not make a parade of his latent capacities or know- ledge ) and having completed (gone beyond) knowledge and bālya (child-like behaviour) he should attain to the position of a muni, and having risen beyond the stage of a muni or non-muni, should become a real brāhmaṇa (one who has realized brahman ). Vide also Br. Up. IV. 4. 22 for similar words and sentimentṣ The Jābālopaniṣad (5)² declares that the ascetic ( parivrāt ) wears discoloured ( not white ) garments, has a tonsured head, has no possessions, is pure, hates (or injures) no one, begs for alms and thereby tends to attain non-difference from brahmaṇ In the Paramahaṁsa, the Brahma, the Nārada-parivrājaka, and the Sannyāsa Upaniṣads numerous rules are laid down about sannyāsa. But the antiquity and the authenticity of these Upaniṣads is extremely doubtful and therefore passing them over attention will be confined to the dharmasūtras and other ancient smṛtis

Gaut. III. 10–24, Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 21. 7–20, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 6. 21–27 and II. 10, Vaṣ Dh. S. X., Manu VI. 33–86, Yaj. III. 56–66, Vaik. IX. 9, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 96, Śāntiparva chap. 246 and 279, Ādiparva chap. 119. 7–21 and Aśvamedhika 46. 18–46, Śaṅkha-smṛti (VII. in verse), Dakṣa VII. 28–38, Kūrmapurāṇa (Uttarārdha, chap. 23), Agnipurāṇa 161 and many other smṛtis and purāṇas dilate upon the characteristics and duties of ascetics ( yatidharma ). Some of the most salient features are set out below with a few referenceṣ

(1) In order to qualify himself for sannyāsa, a person had to perform a sacrifice to Prajāpati in which whatever he had he distributed to priests and the poor and the helpless ( Manu VI. 38, Yaj. III. 56, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 96. 1, Śaṅkha VII. 1).³ The Yatidharmasaṅgraha ( p. 13 ) prescribes that the Prājāpatyeṣṭi should be performed by him who had kept the three vedic fires and the iṣṭi to Agni should be performed by others who kept only the gṛhya fire. The Jābālopaniṣad 4 adds that the sacrifice should be for Agni (and not for Prajāpati as some hold). The Nrsimhapurana (60. 2-4) requires that before entering upon this order one should perform eight śrāddhaṣ The Nrsimha- purāṇa 58. 36 allows every one who is a vedic student to become an ascetic if his tongue, his sexual emotions, his appetite for food and his speech are pure (i. e. under strict control). The eight śrāddhas are daiva (to Vasus, Rudras, Adityas), ārșa (to the ten sages viz. Marici and others), divya (to Hiranya- garbha and Vairāja), mānușya (to Sanaka, Sanandana and five others), bhautika (to five bhūtas, prthvi &c.), paitrka (to Kavyavād fire, Soma, Aryaman, pitṛs called Agniṣvātta &c.), mātṛśrāddha (to ten mātṛs such as Gauri, Padmā), ātmaśrāddha (to Paramātman). Vide Yati-dh. p. 9 and Sṃ M. p. 177. Manu is careful to point out (VI. 35-37) that a man should fix his mind on mokṣa after studying the Veda, procreating sons, performing sacrifices i. e. after discharging his debts to the sages, the pitṛs and godṣ Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 10. 3-6 and Vaik. IX. 6 state that an householder who has no children or whose wife is dead or who has established his children in the path of dharma or who is over 70 may become an ascetic. Kauṭilya (II. 1) prescribes that if a person embraces the order of ascetics without making proper provision for his wife and sons he shall be punished with the first ammercement. ⁴ He has to deposit his fires in himself and leave home (Manu VI. 38).

(2) After leaving home, wife, children and possessions, he should dwell outside the villages, should be homeless and stay under a tree or in an un-inhabited house wherever he may be when the sun sets and should always wander from place to place; but he may remain in one place only in the rainy sea- son ⁵ (Manu VI. 41, 43-44, Vaṣ Dh. S. X. 12-15, Saṅkha VII. 6). Saṅkha (quoted by the Mit. on Yaj. III. 58) allows him to stay in one place only for two months in the rains, while Kanva says that he may stay one night in a village and five in a town (except in the rains). When he follows the rule of staying four or two months in one place, he should do so from the full moon of Āṣāḍha or an ascetic may always stay on the banks of the Gangeṣ (3) He should always wander alone without a companion, as by so doing he will be free from attachments and the pangs of separatioṇ Dakṣa (VII. 34–38) emphasizes this ⁶ point very well ‘the real ascetic always stays alone; if two stay together, they form a pair; if three stay together they are like a village and if more (than three stay together) then it becomes like a towṇ An ascetic should not form a pair or a village or a town; by so doing he swerves from his dharma, since (if two or more stay together) they begin to exchange news about the ruling prince, about the alms obtained and by close contact sentiments of affection, jealousy or wickedness arise between theṃ Bad ascetics engage in many activities viz. expounding (texts) for securing money or honour and also gathering pupils round theṃ There are only four proper actions for an ascetic and no fifth viz. contemplation, purity, begging, always staying alone’. Nārada says ‘there are six acts which ascetics must do as if ordered by the king under the threat of a penalty viz. begging, japa, contemplation, bath (thrice daily), purity and worship of Śiva or Viṣṇu (quoted in Yati-dh. p. 62 and Sṃ M. p. 188). ⁷

(4) He should be celibate, should always be devoted to contemplation and spiritual knowledge and should be unattached to all objects of sense and pleasure (Manu VI. 41 and 49, Gaut. III. 11).

(5) He should move about avoiding all trouble or injury to creatures, should make all creatures safe with him, should bear with indifference all disrespect, should entertain no anger towards him who is furious with him, should utter benedictions over him also who runs him down, should never utter an untruth (Manu VI. 40, 47–48, Yāj. III. 61, Gaut. III. 23).

(6) He should neither kindle śrauta fires nor gṛhya fire nor even ordinary fire for cooking food and should subsist on food obtained by begging ( Manu VI. 38 and 43, Āp. Dh. S. I. 9. 21. 10, Ādiparva 91. 12 ).

(7) He may enter a village for begging food only once a day, he should not ordinarily stay in a village at night (except in the rains) but if he stays at all he should do so only for one night (Gaut. III. 13 and 20, Manu VI. 43, 55 ).

(8) He should beg alms from seven houses without selecting them beforehand (Vaṣ Dh. S. X. 7, Śāṅkha VII. 3, Ādi. 119. 12 ‘ five or ten houses ’). Bauḍ Dh. S. (II. 10. 57-58 ) prescribes that he should visit for alms the houses of brāhmaṇas householders of the Śālīna and Yāyāvara types and should only wait for as much time as would be required for milking a cow. Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 10. 69 quotes the view of others that an ascetic may take alms from persons of all varṇas or food from only one among dvijātis; Vaṣ X. 24 also says that he should beg of brāhmaṇas only. The Vāyupurāṇa I. 13. 17 prescribes that ascetics should not eat food belonging to one man (but should eat food collected from several houses), or flesh or honey should not accept āmaśrāddha ( i. e. śrāddha with uncooked food), should not use salt directly or by itself (i. e. they may eat vegetables in cooking which salt has been used). According to Uśanas (quoted in Sṃ M. p. 200 and Yati-dh. pp. 74-75 ) food obtained by begging is of five kinds viz. mādhukara (collecting food from any three, five or seven houses at random just as bees collect honey from any flowers), prākpraṇīta (when a request is made by devotees to take food at their houses even before the ascetic gets up from his bed), ayācita (when invitation to take food at his house is given by a man before the ascetic starts on his begging round), tātkālika (the food that is announced by a brāhmaṇa the moment the ascetic approaches), upapanna (cooked food brought to the maṭha by devoted disciples or other people). Vaṣ Dh. S. X. 31 says that a brāhmaṇa ascetic should avoid food at śūdra houses and Aparārka p. 963 explains this as implying that in the absence of brāhmaṇa houses an ascetic may beg for food from kṣatriyas and vaiśyaṣ In later times begging alms from persons of all castes was forbidden, being included among kalivarjya actions ( ‘ dates tu sarva-varṇeṣu na bhikṣācaraṇam kalau ’). Vide Sṃ M. p. 201. It was stated by Parāśara and Kratu that no fault attaches to an ascetic if he being very old or very ill took food from a single person on a certain day or for several days or begged for food at the house of his sons, friends, teacher or brothers or wife (vide Sṃ M. p. 201, Yati- dh. p. 75). According to Parāśara I. 51 and the Sūtasamhitā (Jñāna-yoga-khaṇḍa 4. 15-16) the first claim on the food cooked in the house is that of an ascetic and a brahmacārin and one has to perform the Cāndrāyaṇa penance for taking one's meals without giving alms to theṃ In giving food to an ascetic first water is poured on his hand, then food is given and then again water is poured on his hand (Parāśara I. 53 quoted by Haradatta on Gaut. V. 16). Vide Āp. Dh. S. II. 2. 4. 10 and Yaj. I. 107.

(9) He should go out for begging when the smoke from kitchens has ceased to rise and when the noise of pestles has died down and the live coals (in the kitchen) have been extinguished and the plates used for the dining (by the house- holders) have been kept aside i. e. he should beg food in the evening (Manu VI. 56, Yaj. III. 59, Vaṣ X. 8, Śāńkha VII. 2). He should not take as alms honey or flesh (Vaṣ X. 24). He should not endeavour to secure alms by the practice of predicting, interpreting portents and omens or by the practice of describing the consequences indicated by them, nor by astrology nor by expounding the principles of a lore nor by casuistry (or discussion) nor should he approach a house that is already besieged by hermits, brāhmaṇas, birds and dogs, beggars or others (Manu VI. 50-51).

(10) He should not eat food to satiety, but should eat only as much as is necessary to keep body and soul together and should not feel delight when he gets substantial alms nor feel dejected when he gets little or nothing (Manu VI. 57 and 59, Vaṣ X. 21,22 and 25, Yaj. III. 59). There is a famous verse 'an ascetic should take only eight morsels of food, a forest hermit 16, a householder 32 and a Vedic student an unlimited number' (Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 13, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 10. 68).

(11) He should hoard nothing and he should own or possess nothing except his tattered garments, his water jar, begging bowl (Manu VI. 43-44, Gaut. III. 10, Vaṣ X. 6). Devala quoted by the Mit. on Yaj. III. 58 declares that the ascetic should possess only a water-jar, a pavitra (cloth for straining water), pādukās, an āsana and a kanthā (wallet for protection from extreme cold). The Mahābhārata states that wearing ochre-coloured garments, shaving the head, and keeping a water jar and three staffs—these are only outward signs meant to secure food and do not lead to mokṣa⁸ (dialogue of Janaka and Sulabhā). The Mahābhāṣya (vol. I. p. 365) also declares that a man is known to be a parivrājaka on seeing his three staffṣ The Vāyupurāṇa I. 8 (quoted by Aparārka pp. 949-950) lays down what he should possesṣ He should take a staff of bamboo the outward surface of which is intact, which is not formidable and which has the parvans (the parts between the joints) of equal length, which is surrounded by a rope of cow's tail hair four aṅgulas in length and has three knots and which he holds in his right hand; he should have a śikya (loop on which to carry his jar or other things) made of kuśa or cotton or hemp threads or strings and of the form of a lotus and six muṣṭis (fists) in length; he should also have a water jar and a pātra (vessel or bowl for begging); he may have a seat (āsana) of wood square or round in size for sitting on or for washing his feet; he should have a loin-cloth to cover his private parts and a kanthā (patched garment or wallet) for protection against cold and he may have two pādukās (sandals). He should have only these and should not accumulate any- thing else.

(12) He should wear garments only for covering his private parts and may wear such garments as were worn by others and are used by him after washing (Gaut. III. 17-18), while Āp. Dh. S. (II. 9. 21. 11-12) states that he should wear clothes thrown away by others and that some say that he may be nakeḍ Vaṣ (X. 9-11) says that he should cover his body with a piece of cloth (śāṭī) or with deer skin or with grass cut down for cowṣ Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 6. 24 requires that his garments should be ochre-coloured (quoted by Aparārka p. 962).

(13) The begging bowl and the plate from which the ascetic eats should be made of clay or wood or of a gourd, or of bamboo which should be without holes and he should not use metal vessels; and these vessels are to be cleaned with water and scoured with cow's hair (Manu VI. 53-54, Yaj. III. 60 and Laghu-Viṣṇu IV. 29-30).

(14) He should pare his nails, cut all his hair and beard (Manu VI. 52, Vaṣ Dh. S. X. 6); but Gaut. III. 21 appears to allow him an option viz. he may tonsure the whole head or keep only a top-knot.

(15) He should sleep on raised ground (sthanḍila), should feel no concern if he suffers from an illness, he should neither welcome death nor should he feel joy for continuing to live, but he should patiently wait till the time of death, as a servant waits till the time he is hired expires (Manu VI. 43 and 46).

(16) He should generally observe silence except when he repeats the Vedic texts learnt by him (Manu VI. 43, Gaut. III. 16, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 10. 79, Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 21. 10 ).⁹

(17) He should be tridanḍī (carrying three staffs) according to Yāj. III. 58, while Manu VI. 52 simply says he should be danḍī (i. e. carrying a staff). The word danḍa is used in two senses, a staff of bamboo or restraint. Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 10. 53 gives an option that he may be ekadanḍī or a tridanḍī and also says that he should not cause harm to creatures by speech, actions and mind (II. 6. 25). Manu XII. 10, which is the same as Dakṣa (VII. 30), declares that that man is called tridanḍī who has restraint over his speech, mind and body. Dakṣa makes certain apt remarks 'Even gods who pre-eminently possess the sattvaguṇa are carried away by pleasures of sense; what of men? Therefore he who has given up his taste for pleasures should resort to danḍa; others cannot do it as they will be carried away by pleasureṣ An ascetic is not called tridanḍī by carrying bamboo staffs; he is tridanḍī who has the spiritual danḍa in hiṃ Many people make their livelihood under the guise of (carrying) three danḍas' (VII. 27–31, quoted by Aparārka p. 953). Restraint of speech requires that he should observe silence, restraint of action that he should cause injury to no creature and restraint of mind that he should engage in prānāyāma and other yogic practiceṣ Dakṣa him- self says (I. 12–13) that the three staffs are the special out- ward sign of a yati as the girdle, deer-skin and staff are the out- ward signs of the vedic student or long nails and beard are indicia of the forest hermit. Laghu-Viṣṇu IV. 12 says he may be ekadanḍī or tridanḍī. The Jīvanamuktiviveka (p. 154) quotes verses to the effect ‘he who wields the staff of the know- ledge of Reality is called ekadaṇḍi, while he who merely holds a stick in his hand without knowledge and eats everything (or has all sorts of desires) reaches terrible hells ’.

(18) He should recite the vedic texts referring to yajñas or gods or texts of a metaphysical character found in the Vedānta (such as ‘satyam jñānam-anantam brahma ’ in Tai. Up. 2. 1 ). Vide Manu VI. 83.

(19) He should walk after ascertaining with his eye that the ground he treads is pure, should drink water after passing it through a piece of cloth ( in order to prevent ants &c. being taken in by him ), he should utter words purified by truth and should do what his conscience ( inner voice ) decides to be right or proper (Manu VI. 46, Śāṅkha VII. 7, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 96. 14-17).

(20) In order to generate the feeling of vairāgya ( desire- lessness ) and to curb his senses he should make his mind dwell upon the body as liable to disease and old age and as packed full of impurities; and should revolve in his mind the transitory nature of all mundane things, the trouble one has to undergo in body and mind from conception to death, the incessant round of births and deaths ( Manu VI. 76–77, Yāj. III. 63–64, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 96. 25–42 ).

(21) Truthfulness, not depriving another of his posses- sions or his due, absence of wrath ( even against one who harms ), humility, purity ( of body and food &c. ), discrimina- tion, steadiness of mind ( in sorrow ), quiescence ( or restraint ) of mind, restraint of senses, knowledge ( of the self ), these are the dharma of all varṇas ( or these constitute the essence of dharma ). And these have to be acquired most of all by the ascetic, since the outward signs, viz. the scanty clothing, the water jar &c. are not the real means of discharging the real duties of sannyāsa, as anyone can possess these outward signṣ Vide Manu VI. 66, 92–94, Yāj. III. 65–66, Vaṣ X. 30, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 10 55–56, Śānti. 111. 13–14, Vāyupurāṇa vol. I. 8. 176–178 ( ten characteristics, five called vratas and five upavratas ).

(22) He should endeavour to purify his mind by prāṇā- yāma and other practices of yoga and thereby enable himself gradually to realize the Absolute and secure final release ( Manu VI. 70–75, 81, Yāj. III. 62, 64 ).

In many works ascetics are divided into four classeṣ The Mahābhārata ( Anuśāsana 141. 89 ) says that ascetics are . of four sorts, kuṭīcaka, bahūdaka, haṁsa and paramahaṁsa, each later one being superior to each preceding one.¹⁰ Vaik. VIII. 9, Laghu-Viṣṇu IV. 14-23, Sūtasaṁhitā (Māṇayoga khaṇḍa chap. 6), Bhikṣukopaniṣad, Prajāpati (quoted by Aparārka p. 952) define these four. They do not all agree. The kuṭīcaka, as the name itself implies, is one who resorts to sannyāsa in his own house or in a hut erected by his sons, begs food of his sons and relatives, wears the top-knot, the sacred thread, has the three staffs, carries a water-jar and stays in the same hut. The description of these four contained in Vaik.,¹¹ being probably among the oldest available, is set out here. The kuṭīcakas stay in the hermitage of sages like Gautama, Bharadvāja, Yājñavalkya and Hārīta, take eight morsels of food every day, know the essence of the path of Yoga and hanker only after mokṣa (release). The bahūdakas have three staffs, the water-jar and wear garments dyed with ochre, beg for food at seven houses of sage-like brāhmaṇas or other well-conducted men but avoid taking flesh, salt and stale fooḍ The haṁsas stay not more than one night in a village and not more than five nights in a town for alms or subsist on cow’s urine or dung, or fast for a month or always perform the cāndrāyaṇa penance. Pītāmaha ( Varṇāśrama p. 184 ) states that the haṁsas carry only one daṇḍa, enter a village only for alms and otherwise stay under a tree or in a cave or on a river bank.

The Paramahaṁsas always stay under a tree or in an uninhabited house or in a burial place and either wear a garment or are naked; they are beyond the pairs of dharma and adharma, truth and falsehood, purity and impurity. They treat all alike, they regard all as the Self, to them a clod of earth or gold is the same and they beg alms from persons of all varṇaṣ The description in the Bhikṣukopaniṣad is almost in the same words and also contains the words of the Jābalopaniṣad as to Parama- hamsaṣ It appears that long before the Āp. Dh. S. (II. 9. 21. 13-17) i. e. at least five or six centuries before Christ there were people who thought that an ascetic was beyond all vidhi (injuctions to do a thing) and niṣedha (prohibition), that he was above the ordinary rules about truthfulness or falsehood, that he should not care for pleasure or pain or for the study of the Vedas, or for this world or the next, he should simply seek to realize the Self, that when he realizes the Self all his sins, if any, would be liquidated thereby. Āp. combats these ideas by saying that such sentiments were opposed to the śāstras laying down rules about ascetics, that by realizing the Self, he cannot be free from the effects of what he does or the consequences of having a body. The sentiments which Āp. controverts arose from such passages as the one¹² in the Br. Up. IV. 4. 23 'This is the eternal greatness of the man who realizes brahma that by the actions he does, he does not add to it or detract from it. Therefore one should only know the real nature of that great- ness; he on knowing brahma is not affected by an evil actioṇ' In the Kauṣītakī Br. Up. III. 1 it is stated¹³ 'whoever realizes One (the Supreme Spirit ), his worlds (i. e. his position) are not destroyed by any action of his, not even if he kills his parents, not even by theft nor by the murder of a learned brāhmaṇa.' These words are not to be taken literally, they are merely a boastful utterance (a praudhīvāda), they are really laudatory statements emphasizing the supreme value of the realization of brahmaṇ Similarly the Chāṇ Up. IV. 14. 3 says 'just as water does not stick to a lotus-leaf, so sinful actions do not cling to him who knows this'. In the same Upaniṣad (V. 2. 1) we read 'to him who knows this, nothing becomes unfit as fooḍ' The Upaniṣads, however, generally lay great stress on moral virtues and emphasize that a high moral life is absolutely necessary for the seeker after spiritual truth. Vide Br. Up. IV. 4. 23, Chāṇ Up. III. 14. 1, Katha Up. I. 2. 23, I. 3. 8-9 and 12. The position of the Vedāntasūtra (in III. 4.27-31 ) is that the seeker after eternal truth must be endowed with restraint of senses and quiescence of mind and he cannot act just as he pleases ( ŚabdaścātoSkāmākare ) and spurn all rules of morality. Śamkarācārya on Vedānta-sūtra II. 3. 48 and other places makes this position perfectly clear. Viśva-rūpa on Yāj. III. 66 states that even ascetics of the parama-hamsa type are not allowed ( by Yāj. and other sages ) to behave as they please. The Par. M. ( I. part 2, pp. 172-176 ) says that the paramahamsa should have only one daṇḍa and argues that paramahamsas are of two kinds viz. vidvat ( those who have already realized brahman ) and vividiṣu ( those who are eager seekers after realization ) and relies on Br. Up. III. 5. 1 for the former and Br. Up. IV. 4. 22 and Jābalopaniṣad for the latter. Yājñavalkya is an example of vidvat-sannyāsa, which leads to jīvanmukti ( i. e. release even when the body still persists ), while the latter ( vividiṣā-sannyāsa ) leads to release after the body is no more ( i. e. videha-mukti ). Vide Jīvan-muktivi-veka p. 4 ff.

The Jābalopaniṣad ¹⁴ (6) describes the state of paramahamsas at great length. They are sages like Saṁvartaka, Āruṇi, Śvetaketu, Durvāsas, Ṛbhu, Nidāgha, Jaḍabharata, Dattātreya, Raivataka; they do not exhibit any visible signs of their order or any visible rules of conduct; though they are really not mad they behave like one mad; they go out for alms only for keeping body and soul together; they are unaffected by acquisition or absence ( of alms ), they have no house but wander about and stay in a temple or on a heap of grass, on an ant-hill, or at the foot of a tree or on a river bank or in a cave, they have attachment for nothing, they are centred in contemplation of the One Spirit. According to Sūta saṃhitā (II. 6. 3-10) it is only hamsa and paramahamsa that give up śikhā and the sacred threaḍ

The Sannyāsopaniṣad (13) adds two more varieties to the four enumerated above viz. ‘turīyātīta’ and ‘avadūta’ and defines them as follows: ‘turīyātīta’ (one who is beyond the 4th stage viz. of paramahamsa) eats only fruits in the way cows take food (i. e. he does not hold them in his hands), if he takes cooked food then only from three houses, he wears no cloth, his body only continues to live (but he is not conscious of that fact), he deals with his body as if it were deaḍ The avadūta is beyond all restrictions, he takes food from all varṇas except those who are charged with mortal sins or are patita (outcasts) and eats like an ajagara ( a boa constrictor ) i. e. lying down and opening only his mouth without any effort and is solely absorbed in the contemplation of the real nature of the Spirit. Medhātithi ¹⁵ (on Manu VI. 32) is quite emphatic that sannyāsa does not consist in defying all the rules of śāstra, but in giving up the sentiment of egoism and of possessiveness and that it is not true to say that for the sannyāsin all rules (even of morality) are non-existent.

One important question on which opinion was sharply divided is whether sannyāsa was allowed to all the three varṇas or only to brāhmaṇaṣ Those who held that it was allowed to all three varṇas argued as follows: In the Br.¹⁶ Up. IV. 4. 22 we find the words ‘this Self brāhmaṇas seek to know by the study of the Veda’; similarly Br. Up. III. 5. 1 states ‘after knowing this Self, brāhmaṇas give up the hankering after progeny, wealth and heavenly worlds and practise begging’ and Mundaka I. 2. 12 ‘closely examining the worlds that are the rewards of actions, a brāhmaṇa should come to be disgusted &c.’ Here, the word ‘brāhmaṇa’ being used, śruti indicates that brāhmaṇas alone can be sannyāsinṣ Manu (VI. 38) begins his description of the 4th stage with the words 'a brāhmaṇa should leave his house and go into the world as a wanderer' and winds up the chapter (VI. 97) by saying 'I have declared this fourfold procedure in relation to brāhmaṇas'. Laghu-Viṣṇu V. 13 emphatically states that the ascetic order is meant only for brāhmaṇas and the other three āśramas are meant for all dvijaṣ Those who assert that all the regenerate classes can resort to sannyāsa hold that the word 'brāhmaṇa' in the upaniṣads is used only as illustrative (upalakṣaṇa) and not in an exclusive sense and that a Sūtrakāra (Kātyāyana) expressly says ¹⁷ 'the three varṇas after studying the Veda can pass through four āśramas'. The Jābālopaniṣad (4) ordains 'whether a man has fulfilled his vratas or not, whether he has performed samāvartana (the ceremonial bath after studying Veda ) or not, whether his fires (Vedic) have ceased or not he should resort to the wandering ascetic's life the very day on which he feels disgust with mundane affairs'. ¹⁸ It thus allows even a brahmacārī to become an ascetic; a kṣatriya and vaiśya could be a brahmacārī. Yaj. III. 32 states that sannyāsa is a means of purification ( of the mind ) in the case of twice-born classeṣ Besides the only condition precedent mentioned by the Jābālopaniṣad for resorting to pravrajyā (ascetic life) is vairāgya and whoever feels the latter is authorized to betake himself to that stage. Yaj. III. 61 while laying down the observances of ascetics employs the word 'dvijaḥ' and not 'brāhmaṇaḥ'. The Kūrma-purāṇa also says (Uttarārdha 28. 2 ) that a dvija should become an ascetic.

Both these opposing views are supported by the most famous authorṣ The first view that only brāhmaṇas can be sannyāsins is affirmed by the great Śaṁkarācārya in his bhāṣya on Bṛ. Up. III. 5. 1 and IV. 5. 15. It is most interesting and also very refreshing that Sureśvara ¹⁹ in his Vārtika on Śaṁkara's bhāsya on Br. Up. III. 5. 1 first explains the views of his guru, then enters the lists against his great master and combats his views with cogent argumentṣ Most of the medieval writers and works such as Medhātithi on Manu (VI. 97), the Mit., the Madanapārijāta (pp. 365-373), the Smṛtimuktāphala (varṇa- śrama p. 176) uphold the view that only brāhmaṇas can resort to the 4th āśrama, while a few works like the Smṛticandrikā (I. p. 65) support the second view. The position of Viśva- rūpa ²⁰ (on Yāj. III. 61) that only brāhmaṇas can resort to sannyāsa causes great perplexity. Sureśvara and Viśvarūpa are generally regarded as identical (vide H. D. vol. I. pp. 261-263 and Journal of the Andhra Historical Society for 1931, vol. V, p. 187). But Sureśvara holds the view that the word brāhmaṇa in the relevant texts is only illustrative. Therefore it follows that either Sureśvara changes his views or that Sureśvara and Viśvarūpa are not identical. Ananda- giri in his commentary on Sureśvara's Vārtika (p. 759) cites passages from the Mahābhārata (Ādi 119) to establish that kṣatriyas could resort to sannyāsa. ²¹ Śāntiparva (63. 16-21) allows sannyāsa to kings when their life is about to enḍ But the general words of Śānti 62. 2 appear to be in conflict with thiṣ ²² Kālidāsa states that Raghu became a yati when he grew old, installed his son on the throne and stayed in a cottage outside the capital and draws a very poetic and striking picture of the contrast between the old king turned ascetic and the prince become king (Raghu-vaṁśa VIII. 14 and 16).

So far as the smṛti texts and the medieval works are con- cerned a śūdra could not become a sannyāsiṇ The Śāntiparva (63. 11-14) is quite clear that a śūdra cannot be a bhikṣu. It also (18. 32) ²³ informs us that in its day many (probably including śūdras) assumed the outward signs of the 4th āśrama, got their heads tonsured and moved about in ochre-coloured garments (kāṣāya) for securing alms and giftṣ But there are clear indications that śūdras did assume even in the times of ancient smṛtis the ascetic's garb and mode of life. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 115 and Yāj. II. 241 (as read by Viśvarūpa) prescribe the fine of one hundred panas for one who gave a dinner to śūdra ascetics in rites for gods and the maneṣ When the Āśrama-vāśika-parva 26. 33 states that Vidura was buried as an ascetic, the commentator Nīlakaṇṭha remarks that this indicates that even śūdras can follow the mode of the ascetic life.²⁴

It appears that even women could in rare cases adopt the ascetic's life in ancient brāhmaṇic timeṣ The Mit. on Yāj. III. 58 quotes a sūtra of Bauḍ (striṇām cake) to the effect that according to some ācāryas even women could adopt the ascetic mode of life. Patañjali in his Mahābhāṣya (vol. II. p. 100) speaks of a woman ascetic (parivrājikā) named Śaṅkarā. Yama quoted in the Sṃ C. (on vyavahāra p. 254) declares 'neither in the Vedas nor in the dharmaśāstras is pravrajyā enjoined for women; (procreation and care of) progeny from a male of the same varṇa as herself is her proper dharma, this is the establish- ed rule.'²⁵ The Sṃ C. gives in a far-fetched way absence of sexual intercourse as the meaning of pravrajyā here. Atri (136- 137) lays down that six actions by women and śūdras lead to sinfulness viz. japa, tapas (austerities), pravrajyā (ascetic's life), pilgrimages, endeavour to secure miraculous power by repeating spells, sole devotion to the worship of a goddesṣ²⁶ In the drama called Mālavikāgnimitra Kālidāsa describes the Paṇḍitā Kauśikī as wearing the garb of an ascetic (in I. 14). It must be said that the general trend of Hinduism is against women adopting the homeless or ascetic life. The Jātakas (e. g. IV. 392) rarely speak of cāṇḍālas as adopting the homeless conditioṇ When the question is asked whether śūdras or women could resort to sannyāsa there is likely to be some confusioṇ The word 'sannyāsa' conveys two ideas: abandonment of all actions (kāmya karma) that spring from the desire to secure some object or other and secondly, following a certain mode of life (āśrama) the outward signs of which are carrying a staff and the like and the entrance into which is preceded by the utterance of the praiṣa. The Jīvan-muktiviveka²⁷ (p. 3) states that mokṣa (amṛtatva) depends upon tyāga (abandonment) as stated in the Kaivalyopaniṣad (2) 'not by actions, nor by progeny nor by wealth, but by tyāga some attained mokṣa' (release). For such abandonment even women and śūdras are eligible, the best example of a woman giving up everything being that of Maitreyī, the wife of Yājñavalkya, who plainly told the sage (Br. Up. IV. 5. 3–4), 'what have I to do with that which will not make me immortal (will not release me from saṁsāra )?' The Bhagavad-gītā (18. 2) also declares that sannyāsa means the giving up of actions springing from desires (to secure certain objects). The Jīvan-muktiviveka further states that by resorting to the āśrama of sannyāsa the mother and the wife of a sannyāsin are supposed not to be born again as women (but they may be born as men). So women and śūdras may abandon all actions, though they could not adopt the peculiar ascetic mode of life with its out-ward symbolṣ According to Śrīkara's bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra I. 3. 34 the order of sannyāsa, the peculiar rules of which are recommended by Vedic texts, is only for the three varṇas, while mere nyāsa (abandonment of worldly pleasures and desires) can be resorted to by women, śūdras and mixed casteṣ²⁸

Some espoused the view that sannyāsa was meant only for the blind, the cripple and the impotent, that is, for persons who possessed no eligibility (adhikāra) for the performance of Vedic riteṣ Śamkarācārya in his bhāṣya on V. S. III. 4. 20 refutes the view that the passage of the Jābālopaniṣad (4) cited above relates to those who are not eligible for performing Vedic rites and establishes that that passage has in view the general prescription that there is a stage of life called pārivrājya (sannyāsa) meant for all that seek release from samsāra. Sureśvara in his Vārtika on Śamkara's Br. Up. bhāṣya (p. 1908 v. 1144) also refutes the view.²¹⁷⁰ Medhātithi on Manu VI. 36 rejects this view (of some) by saying that the blind or cripple cannot follow the rules and practices (such as not staying in one village for more than one night) just as they cannot perform Vedic rites and hence it could not have been intended by the smṛti writers that sannyāsa was only for the blind and the cripple, nor can the impotent take to sannyāsa as no upanayana is performed in their case. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 56 follows Medhātithi. The Sṃ Mu. (p. 173) and Yati-dh. (pp. 5-6) quote verses to the effect that 'the son of an apostate from sannyāsa, one having bad nails or black teeth, one emaciated by phthisis, one devoid of a limb-these do not deserve to resort to sannyāsa. Similarly those who are guilty of mortal sins or are suspected of them or are vrātyas, those who have left the path of truth, purity, sacrifices, vratas, tapas, charity, study of the Veda and homa should not be allowed to take up the ascetic life'.

One of the principal rules for a yati was that he was to leave wife and home and never to think of sexual matters or to revert to the life of a house-holder. Atri²¹⁷¹ (VIII. 16 and 18) declares ' I see no penance (expiation) for that twice-born man, who, after having resorted to the duties of a celibata (sannyāsin), falls off from that stage; he is neither a dvija nor a śūdra, his children become cāṇḍālas called Vidūra '. Śamkara on V.S. (III. 4. 42) explains that these words are only intended to emphasize the great effort required to remain celibate as a sannyāsin and that expiations are as a matter of fact prescribed for a bhikṣu having sexual intercourse. Dakṣa VII. 33 requires the king to brand on the forehead with the mark of dog's foot and banish from the kingdom a person who after becoming a sannyāsin does not abide by its rules (of celibacy &c. ). It has been seen above that a man who falls away from the order of sannyāsins became a slave of the king for life (p. 185 ). Atri requires a sannyāsin not to stay even for a day in the place where live his father and mother, brother and sister, wife or son or daughter-in-law, his agnates or cognates or friends, or his daughter or her sons (Sṃ Mu. p. 206 ).

Originally these injunctions about complete restraint and abandonment of sexual life and total lack of property were faithfully followed by asceticṣ The great ācārya Śaṁkara was a celibate all his life, but he is said to have established four mathas as stated above (p. 907) for the propagation of his doctrines and philosophy at Śrṁgapura (modern Śṛṁgeri) and other placeṣ Pious devotees bestowed considerable donations on these mathaṣ In course of time these mathas went on increasing and huge properties came to be under the control of the pontiffs of these several mathaṣ There arose ten orders of advaita sannyāsins alone ³¹ viz. tīrtha, āśrama, vana, araṇya, giri, parvata, sāgara, sarasvatī, bhāratī and purī. These ten orders are said to be the pupils in succession of the four disciples of Śaṁkara i. e. the first two of Padmapāda, the next two of Hastāmalaka, the next three of Troṭaka (or Toṭaka) and the last three of Sureśvara. The several mathas at Śṛṁgeri, Kāñcī, Kumbhakoṇam, Kudalgi, Saṅkeśvara, Śivagaṅgā have been quarrelling among themselves as to their jurisdictions ³² and their rights to claim monetary payments from the people and to exercise spiritual authority in matters of expiations, excommunication &c. To support the claims of the various mathas pedigrees of teachers ²¹⁷⁴ and pupils appear to have been fabricated, no two of which agree in toto and in some of them Surēśvara is said to have lived for 700 or 800 yearṣ The disciples of Rāmānuja and Madhva also have many mathas of their owṇ Vallabhā- cārya (one of the great ācāryas that interpreted the Vedānta- sūtras) and his disciples do not accept the order of sannyāsa. According to them in the Kali age sannyāsa is forbidden for the seeker as it leads on to regret and worry ^2174a (if its rules are to be strictly observed) and that the parityāga (abandonment) that is the essence of sannyāsa does not consist in resorting to the 4th āśrama but in behaving in the way in which bhaktas (devotees) like Uddhava acted ( vide Bhāgavata III. 4). Most of these mathas have large endowments or incomes which are spent in pomp and show (e. g. keeping golden images and paraphernalia). Very few of the heads are really learned even in ancient Sanskrit Literature in all its branches, they are impervious to modern tendencies and requirements, are obscurantists and generally oppose all ideas of reforṃ Only a very few mathas are presided over by persons who have been celibate throughout their liveṣ Most of them originally were house- holders and then took to sannyāsa. Besides the succession to the gādi is often a hole and corner affair. When the incumbent is about to die the influential and intriguing persons round him catch hold of some aspiring householder, make him a disciple of the dying sannyāsin and afterwards he is installed as the pontiff. He retains his attachment to his former family and uses a good deal of the income for his relatives and friendṣ Real reform of the maṭhas cannot come unless great improvements are made in selecting a successor. There must be several disciples, the selection must not be made on the incumbent's death-bed, representative bodies must have a voice in the selectioṇ The heads of ascetic maṭhas have often come to the courts on ques- tions about dignity, jurisdiction and propertieṣ For example, in 3 Moore's Indian Appeals p. 193 the Śrigerī Pontiff claimed a declaration that he alone was entitled to proceed on the public road in a palanquin crosswise and for an injunction restraining the Swami of the Lingayats from doing so; in Madhusudan Parvat v. Shree Madhav Teertha, 33 Boṃ 278, the Śamkarācārya of the Śāradā maṭha at Dwarka sued for a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to the title and dignities of a Śamkarācārya and that he was not entitled to call for or receive any offerings from people at Ahmedabad or other places in Gujarat either in his assumed capacity of a Śamkarācārya or as of the Jyotir-maṭha (this claim was also rejected on the grounds that the suit was not of a civil nature and that the offerings were voluntary ).

In Vidya Shankara v. Vidya Narsimha, 51 Boṃ 442 (P. C.) the Privy Council had to deal with a pretty tangle of claims between four persons, the plaintiff and the defendant each claiming to be the lawful Śamkarācārya of Sankeshwar and Karvir maṭha and both having selected a disciple to succeed theṃ These illustrations indicate how the world-renouncing ideal of conduct set forth by the great Śamkarācārya is honoured in modern times by those who swear by his name. They should lay to heart the words of the Jivanmuktiviveka and the quota- tion in it from Medhātithi (pp. 158-159 ) ²¹⁷⁵ viz. ' if an ascetic secures a maṭha as a fixed place of residence and thereon a sentiment of ownership arises in him his mind will be disturbed when loss or expansion of the maṭha takes place ; therefore an ascetic should not possess a maṭha nor should he have vessels of gold or silver for his use nor should he gather pupils round himself for securing service from them or in order that they may honour him, spread his fame, or bring money to him, but he may gather disciples only for removing their ignorance.

In J. R. A. S. for 1925 pp. 479-486 Dr. J. N. Farquhar contributes a very learned article on the organization of the sannyāsins of the Vedānta. Therein he shows how Moslem armed fakirs molested and even killed Hindu ascetics, how Madhusūdana Sarasvatī approached the Emperor Akbar, how failing to get complete redress he initiated kṣatriyas and vaiśyas into seven out of the ten orders of sannyāsins and armed them, how these sannyāsins fought against the moslem fakirs and also among themselves, how even non-brahman women are initiated into the giri and purī orders and how in Northern India the pure monastic orders are those of tīrtha, āśrama and sarasvatī. This innovation later on led to serious consequenceṣ The sannyāsins and fakirs infested the province of Bengal and their incursions and depredations caused great alarm in the first days of the British rule (latter half of the 18th century ³⁶). This shows how the rule of ahimsā enjoined upon ascetics became perverteḍ Various estimates have been made about the number of persons in India professing to lead the ascetic life. They could easily have been 10 per cent of the population, particularly in Northern India. They generally led very indolent, parasitic and dissolute liveṣ There are however, reasons to believe that in recent times the number of so-called sannyāsins is being substantially reduced owing to several causeṣ There have been swarms of monks and nuns in Christian countries also. Before the suppression of the monasteries by Henry VIII in England about 400 years ago, the number of monks, nuns and persons dependent on them was enormously large. Vide ‘English monks’ by Geoffrey Baskerville, p. 285, (f. ṇ 2) where the figures of monks and nuns in England, France and Spain at various periods are giveṇ

According to both ancient and modern Hindu Law, when a man became a sannyāsin, he became cut off from his family and lost all his rights to property, partition and inheritance in that family. Vaṣ Dh. S. 17. 52 lays down that those who resort to another āśrama ( i. e. vānaprastha or sannyāsa ) are excluded from their share (in the family property).³⁷ This result, however, does not follow by merely wearing the garments of a sannyāsin, but in order that this result may must have performed the necessary ceremonies for entering the order of sannyāsinṣ On the other hand whatever belongs to a sannyāsin such as his clothes, his sandals, his books would not devolve on his blood relations as heirs but will go to his spiritual heir (viz. his pupil). Vide Yaj. II. 137 and the Mit. thereoṇ These rules, however, do not apply to a śūdra turning an ascetic. He does not become severed from his family by entering the order of asceticism, unless a usage to that effect is establisheḍ Vide Somasundaram v. Vaithilinga, 40 Maḍ 846 (at p. 869), Harishchandra v. Atir Muhmud, 40 Cal. 545.

The most serious inroad, however, on the ideal of sannyāsa was made when people professing to be ascetics were allowed to have wives or concubineṣ The Vāyupurāṇa (quoted in the Yati-dharmasaṅgraha p. 108) invokes dire consequences on him who after becoming a sannyāsin has sexual intercourse, viz. he becomes a worm in ordure for 60,000 years, passes through the lives of a rat, a vulture, a dog, a donkey, a pig, a tree without flowers and fruit, a goblin and then he is born as a cāṇḍāla. The Rājataraṅgiṇī (III. 12) records³⁸ that when the queen of Meghavāhana built a monastery she established in a portion of it ascetics who followed the rules of conduct laid down for their order and in the other portion ascetics, who were condemn- able because of their acting like householders, together with their wives, sons, cattle and wealth. In the Presidency of Bombay several cases have come before the courts about the rights of succession to Gharbhari Gosavis³⁹ (i. e. ascetics who have a house and family). Vide Gosain Rambharti v. Mahant Surajbharti, 5 Boṃ 682 (where it was held that a Gosavi who succeeded as a disciple to a mohunt did not forfeit his rights by subsequent marriage), Balgir v. Dhondgir, 5 Boṃ L. R. 114, Gitabai v. Shivbakas, 5 Boṃ L. R. 318, Hirabharthi v. Bai Javer, 30 Boṃ L. R. 1555. In the Gupta Inscriptions we have several records of a line of kings who were the feudatories of the imperial Guptas and who bear the appellation 'nṛpati-parivrājaka' (kingly ascetics). Fleet thinks (p. 95 ṇ 1) that the word means no more than what is conveyed by such words as 'rājarṣi', but this is unconvincing. Their gotra was Bharadvāja and the founder is said to have been an incarnation of Kapila (p. 115). It is likely that the founder, after being a king, ultimately became a sannyāsin and his descendants ( in the fashion poetically described by Kālidāsa ) also became ascetics after adorning the throne for some time. Hence they probably came to be called nṛpati-parivrājakaṣ It is interesting to note that Vyāsa quoted in Sṃ M. (p. 176) and Yati-dh. (pp 2-3) forbade sannyāsa in the Kali age, though he made an exception to this extent that as long as the division of society into varṇas existed and as long as the Veda was studied so long sannyāsa could be resorted to in the Kali age.⁴⁰ Nāgeśa in his Vratyatāprāyaścitta-nirṇaya (p. 46) makes the curious statement that according to the Sannyāsa-paddhati of Vyāsa a wise brāhmaṇa should not resort to sannyāsa when 4400 years of the Kali age will have expired (i. e. after 1299 A. D. ).⁴¹ This dictum was probably due not only to the difficulties of observing to the letter the code of life sketched for sannyāsins, but also to the fact that about 1299, the whole of India was being harassed by Moslem invaders and adventurers who made the helpless sannyāsins the first target for their fanatic zeal and persecutioṇ The Nirṇaya-sindhu (III, pūrvārdha, end) quotes the above verse of Vyāsa and remarks that this prohibition of sannyāsa is meant to apply to sannyāsa with three daṇḍaṣ

The Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 10. 11-30, the Bauḍ gr. śeṣasūtra IV. 16, the Vaik. IX. 6-8 contain the procedure of becoming a sannyāsiṇ That of the Bauḍ Dh. S. being probably the most ancient among extant works is briefly set out below:⁴² After having cut the hair on the head, the beard, the hair on the body, the nails, he makes ready three sticks, a loop of strings, (a piece of cloth as) a water strainer, a jar and a bowl. Having taken these he should go to the end of his village, or to the extremity of the boundary of his village, or the fire-hall; he should partake of clarified butter, milk and curds (mixed together) and should fast or drink water. Then he should recite the vyāhṛtis separately preceded by 'om' and followed by the words 'I enter the Sāvitrī' and by one pāda of the sacred Gāyatrī and then all together.⁴³ Before sunset, he heaps fuel on the gārhapatya fire (if he has maintained Vedic fires), brings the anvāhāryapacana (dakṣiṇāgni) to the spot, takes the flaming āhavanīya fire out of the gārhapatya, melts clarified butter on the gārhapatya, cleanses it (with blades of kuśa), takes four portions of the butter in the spoon called 'sruc' and offers in the āhavanīya fire on which fuel-sticks have been heaped a full oblation (i. e. whole spoonful) four times saying 'om svāhā'. This is called Brahmānvādhāna (putting fuel-sticks on fire for securing knowledge of brahman). Then in the evening after agnihotra has been offered, he strews grass to the north of the gārhapatya fire, places on the grass sacrificial vessels in pairs with the upper parts turned downwards, spreads darbha grass to the south of the āhavanīya fire on the seat meant for the brahmā priest, covers it with black antelope skin and remains awake the whole of that night. Then he rises at the time (muhūrta) sacred to Brahmā and offers agnihotra in the early morning at the proper time. Then after covering the part of the altar called pṛṣṭhyā and bringing water he prepares an offering for Agni Vaiśvānara cooked on twelve potsherdṣ That well-known iṣṭi will be the last he will perforṃ Afterwards, he throws in the āhavanīya fire those sacrificial vessels which are not made of stone or earth. And throwing the two araṇis (the wooden logs by the friction of which fire was produced for vedic rites) into the gārhapatya fire with the words ‘may you two be of one mind with us’ he (mentally) deposits the three fires in himself. Repeating the mantra ‘ya te agne yajñīya tanūr’ (Tai. S. III. 4. 10. 5) he inhales the smell of the smoke of each of the three fires thrice. Then standing within the sacrificial enclosure he says thrice in a low voice and thrice aloud the words ‘om bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ svaḥ. I have entered the order of sannyāsa (lit. I have abandoned), I have entered the order of sannyāsa, I have entered the order of sannyāsa’. Lastly he pours out as much water as will fill his joined hands saying ‘I promise that no injury will proceed from me to any creature’. He must henceforth restrain his speech. He holds his staff saying ‘thou art my friend, protect me’. He takes the śikya (loop of strings) with the words ‘yadasya pāre rajasah’ (Tai. S. IV. 2. 5. 2); he takes the cloth for straining water with the text ‘yena devāḥ pavitreṇa’ (Tai. Br. I. 4. 8 and Nirukta V. 6); he takes the water jar reciting ‘yena devā jyotiṣordhvam’ (Tai. S. V. 7. 2. 2); he takes the bowl after reciting the seven vyāhṛtiṣ Taking with him the staffs, the loop of strings, the cloth as a water strainer, the water-pot and the bowl he goes to a place where water can be had, bathes, sips water and sprinkles himself (performs mārjana) with the Surabhimatī ⁴⁴ verse (dadhi-krāvno, Rg. IV. 39. 6), with Ablingā verses, Varuṇi verses, Hiraṇyavarṇā verses (Tai. S. V. 6. 1. 1 = Atharvaveda I. 33. 1–4) and Pāvamāni verses (Rg. IX. 1 &c.). While still in the water he performs sixteen prāṇāyāmas after (mentally going over) the Aghamarṣaṇa verses (Rg. X. 190. 1–3), comes out of the water on the bank, wrings his garments, puts on another pure (washed) garment, sips water, takes the cloth for straining water with the words ‘om bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ’ and performs tarpaṇa to the seven ⁴⁵ vyāhṛtiṣ He then fills his joined hands with water and performs tarpaṇa to the Manes just in the same way as he did to the gods, then he worships the sun with the two verses ‘udu tyam’ (Rg. 1. 50. 1) and ‘citram’ (Rg. I. 115. 1). He then offers tarpaṇa to the Ātman (self) with ‘the syllable om is brahma; this light (the sun) that diffuses warmth is indeed brahma; this which gives warmth is indeed the Veda; this indeed that sheds warmth is the (proper) object of knowledge'; then he worships the Ātman with the words ‘the Self is brahman, it is light’. Let him repeat the Gāyatrī verse one thousand times or an unlimited number of timeṣ Repeating ‘om bhūrbhuvaḥ svaḥ’ he takes up the water strainer (cloth) and fetches water. Let him not thereafter perform ācamana with water that has not been drawn up (from a well), which has not been strained⁴⁶ and which has not been completely cleanseḍ Let him not wear thereafter white garmentṣ He may carry one staff or three. He has to keep the following vows: ahimsā (abstaining from injury to any creature), truth- fulness, not depriving others of any property of theirs, continence, and liberality. There are five minor vratas (vows) viz. absence of anger, waiting upon the guru, avoidance of care- lessness ( or rashness ), cleanliness, purity in fooḍ Then follow rules as to begging for alms (some of them are at pp. 933-934 above ). When he returns from begging, he places the alms in a pure spot, washes his hands and feet and announces (the alms) first to the sun with the verses ‘udu tyam’ ( Rg. I. 50. 1 ) and ‘oitram’ (Rg. I. 115. 1); he also announces the alms to brahman with the text ‘brahma jajñānam’ (Tai. S. IV. 2. 8. 2 =Atharvaveda IV. 1. 1). It is declared (in Vedic texts) that after the brahmādhāna the sacred fires are contained in the sacrificer himself; his prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna and samāna represent the five fires gārhapatya, anvāhāryapacana (dakṣi- ṇāgni), āhavanīya, sabhya and āvasathya. These five fires indeed abide in the Ātman; he, therefore, offers (the oblations) in the Ātman only. This sacrifice offered in the soul, which is centred in and based on the Ātman, leads the soul to blisṣ Giving compassionately portions of the alms to creatures and sprinkling the remainder with water, he should partake of it as if it were some medicine. After he has eaten and taken ācamana he worships the sun with the Jyotiṣmatī⁴⁷ verse viz. 'ud vayam’ (Rg. I. 50. 10) after inaudibly muttering the two texts ‘vañ me āsan’ (Tai. S. V. 5. 9. 2) and ‘nasoḥ prāṇaḥ’ (Tai. Ār. X. 72). Let him eat food given without asking, regarding which nothing has been settled beforehand and which comes to him by chance and so much only as is neces-sary to support life.

Now they quote the following rules for the case where the teachers explain the Upaniṣad ‘standing (in the day), keeping silence, sitting (at night) in the posture⁴⁷ of crossed legs, bathing thrice a day, he shall subsist entirely on rice grains, oil-cake, food from barley, sour milk and milk’. It is declared in Vedic texts ‘on that occasion he shall keep strict silence and converse as much as is necessary with the teachers deeply versed in the three vedas, with ascetics or other learned persons in the several āśramas, after pressing the teeth together, all the while contemplating on what he hears, but not in such a way as would cause a breach of his vow. He may keep only one of the rules out of the three viz. standing (in the day), rigid silence and sitting with crossed legs (at night) and not all together. Eight things do not cause him who is intent on vows as above to break his own vow viz. water, roots, clarified butter, milk, sacri-ficial food, the wish of a brāhmaṇa, an order of his guru, and medicine. Let him mutter the mantras in the evening and morning that are repeated in the Agnihotra. He should perform his evening sandhyā adoration with mantras addressed to Varu-ṇa⁴⁸ and in the morning with those addressed to Mitra (Rg. III. 59). It is declared in the Veda ‘limited in number are the ṛk verses, the sāmāns and the yajus formulæ, but there is no limit to this that is brahma.’ In this way (i. e. repeating om) the ascetic may give up the rest of the Veda, but should stand firm by the root of the Veda (viz. om). The Veda is the tree and its root is praṇava (om). He should meditate on ‘om’. Prajāpati has declared that praṇava leads on to union with brahmaṇ Let him cleanse the vessel of brahman with seven vyāhṛtiṣ⁴⁹ Among medieval works the Smṛtyarthasāra (pp. 96-97), the Sṃ M. (pp. 177-182 ), the Yati-dh. (pp. 10-22 ), the Nirṇaya-sindhu (III. Uttarārdha pp. 628-632), the Dharma-sindhu give various detailed procedureṣ Many of the medie-val works and manuals (paddhatis) on sannyāsa frequently refer to a work called Braḥmānandi, which I have not been able to secure. The procedure in the Dharmasindhu contains the following elementṣ Sannyāsa is to be resorted to in the northward passage of the sun and for a man who is about to die even in the southward passage. He should find out a teacher possessed of the virtues of quiescence and note for three months the duties of ascetics in his company, should purify himself with japa of the sacred Gāyatrī, Rudra mantras and by Kuṣmāṇḍa homa (for which see Tai. Ār. II. 7). He should then make a saṅkalpa ⁵⁰ after reciting the place and time on a riktā tithi and should perform the prāyaścitta of catuhkṛcchra by giving a cow or money for each as stated above (pp. 199-200). Then he should begin to perform on the 11th or 12th day 16 śrāddhas of himself and sapiṇḍīkaraṇa. Then he is to perform eight śrāddhas (vide above p. 932) and tarpaṇa as a subordinate part (aṅga) of these eight śrāddhaṣ On the day these eight śrāddhas are performed or on the next day he should shave off the whole head after keeping six hairs out of his top-knot, pare his nails, then take his bath, then he is to donate to brāh-maṇas and his sons all his wealth except his wearing apparel and the materials for homa. The garments he is to wear should be dyed with red chalk; he should secure a bamboo staff as high as his head &c. and as thick as his finger and brought by a brāhmaṇa; that staff should be sprinkled over with water from a conch to the accompaniment of ‘om’, the puruṣa hymn (Ṛg. X. 90) and such names (of Viṣṇu) as Keśava. He should also keep ready a water jar, a strip for his loins and a garment to cover his body and a wallet and pādukās (sandals). He should declare his resolve (saṅkalpa) to become a parama-haṁsa and perform the worship of Gaṇeśa, puṇyāhavācana, worship of mother goddesses and Nāndī-śrāddha. He should then perform japa by saying ‘namaḥ’ to Brahmā (in the dative), Viṣṇu, Rudra, Sūrya, Soma, Ātman, Antarātman, Paramātman and also repeat the first pādas of each of the four Vedaṣ He should then eat three handfuls of barley flour with 'om' and touch his navel. He should then sip thrice clarified butter or water mixed with milk and curds repeating the mantras 'trivṛd-asi', 'pravṛd-asi', 'vivṛd-asi' (all three in Vāj. S. 15. 9) and then drink water with the mantra 'may the waters purify' (Tai. Ār. 10. 23), then perform ācamana and declare his resolve to fast. Then comes Sāvitrīpraveśa (as in Bauḍ above); then he should kindle his gṛhya fire or if he has no gṛhya fire then he should bring domestic fire with the mantra 'pṛṣṭo divi' (Ṛg. VII. 5. 27) and kindle it with the three mantras 'tat savituḥ', 'tām savituḥ' and 'viśvāni deva' (Ṛg. III. 62. 10, Vāj. S. 17. 74, Ṛg. V. 82. 5). Then comes brahmāṇvādḥāna before sunset (see above p. 954). He should thereafter perform evening sandhyā adoration, homa and vaiśvadeva and keep awake the whole night near the fire. Then the next morning after the daily homa and Vaiśvadeva he should offer a mess of cooked food to Agni or Vaiśvānara and perform the homa to prāṇa and others, the puruṣasūkta homa and virajā homa. The Virajā homa is a lengthy performance and the principal elements in it are: the offering of 40 oblations of each out of the three viz. fuel-sticks, boiled rice and clarified butter after repeating certain formulae such as 'may my five prāṇas be purified, may I be light (illumination ) free from rajas (the principle of activity or obstruction) and from evil, svāhā; this is for the prāṇa and the rest, it is not mine.' In this way oblations are offered to five senses, the mind, buddhi, seed, thought and saṅkalpa, to the constituents of the body, to the several limbs of the body (head, hands and feet &c.), to puruṣa and others, to the five elements, to the five guṇas of the elements, to the five kośas (sheaths) and several otherṣ Then an oblation of ājya is made to Prajāpati. Then he should recite the Puruṣa hymn (Ṛg. X. 90) and the first sentences of the four Vedas, offer oblations to Agni Sviṣṭakṛt, distribute gifts to students and others, he should burn his wooden utensils in his gṛhya fire if he has kept one and donate the metal vessels to his guru, then he should deposit the fire in himself by reciting 'ayam te yoniḥ' (Ṛg. III. 29. 10) and 'yā te agne yājñiyā' (Tai. S. III. 4. 10. 5) thrice and should face and take in the blaze and warmth of his gṛhya fire, should take a black antelope skin and leave his house. He should give blessings to his sons and other near relatives and bid good-bye to them with the words 'to me belongs no one nor do I belong to any one.' Then he should go to a reservoir of water, take in his folded hands water and offer it. to all gods with the hymn Rg. X. 103 (1-13). He should declare a resolve to resort to sannyāsa for the realization of brahman and offer three handfuls of water in the reservoir. He should then discharge water into the reservoir from his joined hands saying 'I have given up the hankering for sons, wealth, worlds and for everything, may there be safety to all creatures from me, svāhā.' Then he should again declare that he has abandoned everything, all pleasures, all sentiments of anger &c., all joys of flowers, scents, dancing and music, all duties of varṇa and āśramas &c.; he should also declare 'I shall not cause any injury to any creature in thought, word or by the body; may all creatures have no fear of me.' He should think of the sun and other gods as witnesses to this declaration and standing in navel-deep water should again perform the Sāvitrīpraveśa and offer water in declaring 'I have risen beyond the desire for sons, worlds and wealth and shall practise begging.'

After this comes the utterance of the praiṣa (the call or direction). In a low, moderate and loud voice the entrant should declare 'om, bhūḥ I have given up everything, om bhuvaḥ, I have ........., om svaḥ, I have.........., om bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ, I have given up everything' and should discharge water in the reservoir of water with the words 'may there be no injury to all creatures from me, svāhā.' He should pluck out the top-knot, take out his sacred thread and hold them in his hand and offer them in water with water with the words 'water is indeed all deities, I sacrifice (the top-knot and sacred thread) to all gods, svāhā' and then he should send up a prayer to Vāsudeva. Then he should remove his wearing apparel and walk five steps with his face to the north. Then the ācārya should bow to the entrant and should hand over to the latter a piece of loin cloth and upper garment and a staff. The entrant should wear them and hold the staff with appropriate mantras and also a water jar and an āsana (a seat). He should then hold a fuel-stick in his hand, bow to his guru, sit down in the eagle posture and make a request to the guru in the words 'Oh teacher, who are like the Lord of the Universe to me, save me who am scorched by the fire of saṁsāra and who am bitten by Death; I have thrown myself on your mercy' and also repeat the verse 'yo brahmāṇam' (Śvetāśvatara Up. VI. 18 quoted in note 856 above).⁵¹ Having waited upon the guru with these words and placing his right knee on the ground, he should clasp the feet of his guru and should say ‘teach, Sir, brahma to me.’ The guru should contemplate on his soul as brahman, should recite over a conch full of water the sacred syllable ‘om’ twelve times, should pour the water from the conch on his disciple, should recite the propitiatory verse ‘śam no mitrah’ (Rg. I. 90. 9 ), then lay his hand on the head of the disciple, should recite the Puruṣa hymn (Rg. X. 90), should place his hand on the heart of the disciple and mutter the mantra ⁵² ‘I place thy heart in disciplined obedience to me,’ the guru should then mutter in the right ear of the disciple the syllable ‘om’ and should enlighten him about the signi- ficance of ‘om’ and of pañcīkaraṇa;⁵³ he should then impart to the disciple one of the four great Vedānta sentences (mahāvākya) ‘prajñānam brahma’ (Ait. Up. III. 3), ‘ayam-ātmā brahma’ (Br. Up. II. 5. 19), ‘tat tvam-asi’ (Chāṇ Up. VI. 8. 7), ‘aham brahmāsmi’ (Br. Up. I. 4. 10) in accordance with the tradition of his school and enlighten him about the meaning thereof. Then he should give to the disciple a name ending in tīrtha, āśrama &c. according to the tradition of his order. Then the guru may bring about what is called paryaṅkaśauca and give to the disciple the yogapaṭṭa.

The paryaṅka-śauca (purification by being seated on a stool &c.) may be briefly describeḍ On an auspicious day a house- holder seats the ascetic in front of him on a wooden stool or seat, places five heaps of earth to his left and also to his right and also pure water on both sideṣ Then the householder simultaneously washes the two knees of the ascetic with water and earth from the first heap of earth on the left. Then he should wash his own left hand with earth and water taken from the half of the first heap on the right and with the remain- ing half of the first heap on the right he should wash both his hands seven times with the same water. With the second heap on the left he should wash simultaneously the two thighs (jaṅghā) of the ascetic four times and with one half of the second heap on the right he should wash his own left hand seven times and with the other half of the second heap (on the right) he should wash both his hands four timeṣ The ankle, the upper part of the foot and the lower part (sole) of the foot of the ascetic are respectively washed with the third, fourth and fifth heap on the left and his own left hand and both hands are washed a certain varying number of times with 3rd, 4th, 5th heaps on the right.

The yogapaṭṭa (lit. the cloth of yoga, union with Spirit) is given in the following way: After the ascetic has under- gone paryaṅkāśauca, he should cleanse his waist, wear a string round his waist and his loin cloth and cover his waist with a piece of cloth. He should then sit with his guru's permission on a high seat and should propound some Vedānta topic in the presence of the persons assembleḍ The ascetic guru should sprinkle on the head of his ascetic disciple water from a conch to the accompaniment of the Puruṣa hymn (Rg. X. 90), should honour him by offering clothes, sandalwood paste, flowers, incense, lamp and naivedya. He (the guru) should hold a piece of cloth over the head of the disciple, recite along with the other yatis the chapter called Viśvarūpa (11th chapter of the Bhagavadgītā) from the 15th verse to the 33rd verse. He should then give the name already determined upon to the disciple and say to him ‘Henceforward you may admit to saṁnyāsa one who is eligible for it, initiate him and give him the yogapaṭṭa.’ Then the disciple bows to the yatis older than himself. Then the guru gives to the disciple a waist-thread and a staff marked with five mudrās and should offer his own salutation to the disciple according to the tradition of his order. Other ascetics and house-holders also should bow to the disciple, who should only repeat the word ‘Nārāyaṇa,’ should leave the high seat and seat his guru thereon, should bow to the guru according to the rules of the order and to the other asceticṣ ⁵⁴ The Jābalopanisad ⁵⁵ allows samnyāsa to those even who are suffering from disease and are about to die, all that is required being that they should declare in words and resolve in their mind to enter the order of samnyāsa. No extensive ceremonial is requireḍ Angiras and Sumantu quoted in Sṃ M. (pp. 174 and 182) state 'when a man is shattered by old age or harassed by his enemies or is suffering from ( an incurable) disease he may resort to samnyāsa by merely uttering the praiṣa (vide above p. 960) and no further rites would be absolutely necessary. He should recite thrice in the morning, at noon and in the evening, ' I have given up everything (or entered upon samnyāsa)' and further say 'I forswear whatever action I may have done through ignorance, indolence or carelessness; I shall cause no harm to creatures with my hands or feet, with my speech, body or mind; may all creatures have no fear from me.' The Dharmasindhu (III, uttarārdha) says that in this samnyāsa for those at the door of death the absolutely essential elements are the resolve (samkalpa), the uttering of the praiṣa and the giving of the promise of non-injury and the rest of the rites may or may not be performed according to circumstanceṣ Even now such a samnyāsa ( called āturasamnyāsa) is sometimes resorted to by religious-minded men in extremis, the only essentials gone through being samkalpa (declaration of resolve), kṣaura (tonsure of the head), sāvitrīpraveśa (described above at p. 954) and praiṣoccāra (utterance of praiṣa).

One question on which controversies have raged from very ancient times is whether an ascetic should give up his top-knot and sacred thread also. The Jābalopaniṣad ⁵⁶ (5) states that Atri asked Yājñavalkya how a man who did not wear a yajñopavīta (when he became an ascetic) could still be a brāh-maṇa and that the great sage replied that in the case of the ascetic the Self was his yajñopavīta and the same Upaniṣad (6) states that the paramahamsa is to abandon in water the three daṇḍas, the water-jar, the śikya, the begging bowl, the water-strainer, the topknot and yajñopavīta and should be a seeker after the Self. In the Aruṇika Up. (2) it is said ⁵⁷ that he should discharge his yajñopavīta on the earth or in water and that he should give up his śikhā and the sacred threaḍ Śamkara in his bhāṣya on Br. Up. III. 5. 1 sets out at some length the arguments and the authorities on both sides and ultimately gives it as his own view that the sacred thread and śikhā should be given up by the ascetic. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 66 also discusses this matter and propounds the same view. On the other hand Vṛddha-Hārīta ⁵⁸ VIII. 57 declares 'if an ascetic gives up the acts peculiar to brāhmaṇas, viz. keeping a topknot and wearing a sacred thread, he becomes a cāṇḍāla while alive and is born a dog after death.' The Jīvanmukti-viveka (p. 6 ff.) and Par. M. I. part 2, p. 164 ff. discuss this point and arrive at the same conclusion as Śamkara. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 58 gives an optioṇ In modern times samnyāsins give up these two.

Some special rules are laid down about the āhnika (daily rites) of asceticṣ⁵⁹ They have to perform śauca, brushing the teeth, bath, just as house-holders have to do. Manu V. 137 ( = Vaṣ Dh. S. VI. 19, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 60. 26, Śaṅkha 16. 23-24) says that forest hermits and ascetics have respectively to per-form three and four times as much śauca (bodily purification) as house-holderṣ As to food, it has already been seen (p.935) that they are to eat only once and only eight morselṣ Ascetics have to worship Puruṣottama ( i. e. Vāsudeva with his four forms), Vyāsa (with his four pupils, Sumantu, Jaimini, Vaiśampāyana, Paila ), the Bhāṣyakāra Śamkara (with his four pupils) and so oṇ Certain rules are laid down for an ascetic as regards giving and receiving honour or salutatioṇ An ascetic should bow to gods and to older ascetics who act according to the rules of their order, but should not offer namaskāra to an house-holder even if the latter be well-conducteḍ If another person bows to an ascetic, the latter should not pronounce any benediction but should only utter the word⁶⁰ 'Nārāyaṇa.' When an ascetic (even one who has taken saṃnyāsa on his death-bed) dies, he is to be buried and not cremateḍ No mourning is to be observed for a yati when he dies (Atri 97) and no śrāddhas are to be offered on his death except the pārvaṇa on the 11th day after death (vide Aparārka p. 538). If an ascetic hears of the death of his son or any other relative, he does not become impure and has not to bathe but on hearing of his mother's or father's death he has to bathe, though he observes no mourning⁶¹.

According to the theory of Dharmaśāstra, the king is not only the head of the civil administration and the fountain of justice, but he is also the final controlling authority in preserving religious and spiritual institutions, he is to see that people follow the dharma, to punish them for breaches of the religious and spiritual codes and to see to the administration to them of appropriate penanceṣ In short, he is also the Defender of the Faith. Vide Gaut. XI. 9-11, Viṣṇu Dh. S. III. 2-3, Nārada (prakirṇaka) verses 5-7, Yāj. I. 337 and 359, Atri 17-20, Manu VII. 13. But he regulated spiritual and religious matters not by his arbitrary authority but on the advice of his purohita and ministers and after taking the opinion of the assemblies (pariṣad) of learned meṇ Whenever difficult questions arose about the validity of anything from the religious point of view or about penances for lapses, or about excommunicating or outcasting a man the opinion of the assembly of learned men was sought. Therefore, detailed rules are laid down in the Dharmasūtras and smṛtis about the constitution of pariṣads. In modern times, the British Government being neutral in matters religious or ecclesiastical, the ascetic heads of the various mathas have been in the habit of assuming to themselves jurisdiction over persons professing to follow their dogmas in ecclesiastical matters such as prescribing penances for lapses, settling disputes between castes, and deciding upon questions of outcasting. A few words must be said about the pariṣads and about the claims of the Śaṅkarācāryas (the modern heads of maṭhas) to regulate religious matters affecting their followerṣ

Among the oldest texts on this point is the one contained in the Tai. Up. I. 11. viz. the exhortation of the teacher on the eve of the student's departure at the close of his studieṣ⁶² ‘If you have hereafter a doubt about any rite or about a course of conduct, you should behave in the way in which the brāhmaṇas of your place, who are thoughtful, intent (upon doing their duties), act spontaneously ( without being urged by any one ), are not hard-hearted and have an eye only to dharma ( and not to kāma or artha ) will behave. The same holds good about your conduct towards persons charged (generally falsely) with sins or lapses’.

The words ‘sabhā’ ( Rg. X. 34. 6 ) and ‘samiti’ ( Rg. X. 97.6 ) occur even in the Ṛgveda but their exact significance is doubt- ful and the former word at least seems to bear the sense of ‘gambling hall’ in some passageṣ In the Upaniṣads, however, the words samiti and pariṣad assume a more definite sense, meaning ‘an assembly of learned men in a particular locality’. The Chāṇ Up. V. 3. 1 states that Śvetaketu Āruṇeya⁶³ repaired to the assembly (samiti) of the Pañcālas (where Prāvāhaṇa Jaivali put him five questions of a metaphysical and esoteric nature). The Bṛ. Up. VI. 2. 1 when narrating the same episode employs the word ‘pariṣad’. These passages establish that in Upaniṣads there were assemblies of learned men where intricate questions were discusseḍ Gaut. 28. 46 prescribes just as the Tai. Up. I. 11 does that in matters about which there is no certain rule (or there is doubt) one should do what is commended by respectable persons not less than ten in number, who are clever in discussion and are above covetous-nesṣ⁶⁴ The Ap. Dh. S. I. 3. 11. 34 declares that holidays other than those stated by him may be observed as settled by pariṣads. The Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 1. 44-45 prescribes “the relatives of a brahmacārī who is guilty of sexual intercourse should empty a water pot in the pariṣad and the offender should confess ‘I, so and so by name, am guilty of such and such a misdeed’ and that after the erring person has performed penance and when he has touched water, milk, ghee, honey and salt, the brāhmaṇas should ask him ‘have you performed the penance?’ The other shall then reply ‘yes’; then they shall admit him who has performed penance to all sacrificial rites making no difference between him and otherṣ” ⁶⁵ This clearly establishes that at least five centuries before the Christian era it was the privilege of the assembly of the learned brāhmaṇas to administer penance to a sinner and then restore him to all rights of interdining and other social intercourse. Vaṣ Dh. S. I. 16 declares ‘there is no doubt that whatever persons who have studied dharmaśāstra and the three Vedas expound as purifying themselves and others is the proper dharma.’ Ap. Dh. S. I. 1. 2 declares that the conventions of those that know dharma are the authoritative standard (of conduct for ordinary men). When the smṛtis declare that Veda, smṛti and the usages of śiṣṭas are the three sources of dharma (e. g. Vaṣ Dh. S. I. 4-5) they convey that śiṣṭas can and should determine from time to time what is religious conduct. When Bṛhaspati enjoins that doubts about dharma should not be settled by blindly following the letter of śāstras, but that logic and reasoning should be employed, he strikes the true note of the spirit of the ancient sageṣ ⁶⁶ Vide also Manu XII. 106 and Gaut. XI. 23-24 for the importance of tarka in settling matters of dharma. Manu XII. 108 states ‘if one were to ask how one should act in matters of dharma on which no express rule is declared in this work, the reply is that in such cases what is declared to be a proper rule of conduct by respectable (śiṣṭa) brāhmaṇas would undoubtedly be the dharma.’ Yāj. III. 300 requires that a person guilty of a sin or lapse should declare it to an assembly of learned brāhmaṇas and undergo such vrata (penance and observances) as is approved of by the pariṣaḍ Śaṁkarācārya in his bhāṣya on Br. Up. IV. 3. 2 makes the very significant ⁶⁷ remark “it is therefore that in coming to a decision on a subtle point of dharma, it is desirable to have a pariṣad working and a specially distinguished person is wanted (to give the lead) as stated in the rule ‘a pariṣad should consist of not less than ten persons or of three or of one (specially distinguished )’.” These several authorities establish that for over 1500 years before the great Śaṁkarācārya the pariṣad of learned brāhmaṇas was the acknowledged authority for settling doubtful points of dharma and administering penances on lapses from proper conduct, and that Śaṁkarācārya himself acknowledged this privilege of the pariṣaḍ

The next question is : what is the number of persons required to constitute a pariṣad for deciding on doubtful points of dharma and what their qualifications should be. According to Gaut. 28. 46-47 a pariṣad should consist of at least ten ⁶⁸ persons viz. four, each of whom has mastered one Veda, three members who are respectively a ( perpetual ) student, a house-holder and a saṁnyāsin and three more each of whom has studied distinct dharmaśāstraṣ Vaṣ Dh. S. III. 20, Bauḍ I. 1. 8, Parāśara VIII. 27 and Aṅgiras declare that four persons each of whom has mastered one of the four Vedas, one who knows the Mīmāṁsā, one who has studied the six subsidiary lores of the Veda, one who has studied dharmaśāstra and three persons who are a house-holder, a forest hermit and a saṁnyāsin constitute a pariṣad of teṇ Manu XII. 111 defines the ten as consisting of three masters of each of the three Vedas (excluding the Atharvaveda), one who has studied Logic, a student of Mīmāṁsā, a student of Nirukta, a master of dharmaśāstras and three members in each of the first three āśramaṣ Bṛhaspati ⁶⁹ quoted in Par. M. II. 1 p. 218 declares that a pariṣad may be constituted by seven or five persons sitting together who have studied the Vedas, their six subsidiary lores and dharmaśāstra and that such a pariṣad resembles a solemn sacrifice. Vide also Angiras quoted by Aparārka p. 23 for seven or five men as constituting a pariṣaḍ Vaṣ Dh. S. IIL 7, Yāj. I. 9, Manu XII.112, Parāśara VIII. 11 state that at least four or three men should constitute a pariṣad, but they should be students of each of the four Vedas, should be agnihotrins and should have also studied dharmaśāstra. If even three cannot be found then even a single man can declare the dharma in case of doubt (Gaut. 28.48), but he must possess special qualificationṣ Gaut. 28. 48, Manu XII. 113 (= Atri 143) require that he must be the best of brāhmaṇas, a śiṣṭa and a deep student of the Veda. Yāj. I. 9, Parāśara VIII. 13, Angiras⁷⁰ say that a single person who is the best among ascetics possessing know- ledge of the Self may form a pariṣad and declare what the pro- per rule is on a point of doubt. Though the texts permit in extreme cases a single man to declare dharma in case of doubt they give emphatic warning that this should not be done as far as possible. Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 1. 13 observes⁷¹ 'the way of dharma is very subtle and difficult to follow and it has many entrances (i. e. it appears different in different circumstances); therefore a person though knowing much should not undertake single- handed to propound the proper course of conduct in case of doubt.' The texts also emphasize that doubtful points of dharma are not to be decided by the votes of ignorant people, even if they muster in thousandṣ Manu XII. 114-115 (=Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 1. 17 and 12=Vaṣ Dh. S. III. 5-6=Parāśara VIII. 6 and 15) state 'Even if thousands of brāhmaṇas who have observed no vrata and who have studied no Vedic mantras and who make their living merely by virtue of their caste come together they do not constitute a pariṣaḍ When such foolish persons deluded by ignorance and ignorant of dharma declare (a penance for a sin) the sin is multiplied a hundred-fold and reaches the propounderṣ'

The Mit. on Yāj. III. 300 remarks that the number mention- ed as constituting a pariṣad is not material, that all that is meant is that for lesser sins a small number of learned men can declare the penance, but in the case of serious sins, the number of persons who constitute the pariṣad should be large. Devala⁷² quoted in the Mit. on Yāj. III. 300 says that when the sin is not grave, brāhmaṇas may declare the penance without reference to the king (and restore the sinner to his privileges) but when the sin is grave, then the king and brāhmaṇas must carefully examine the matter and then declare the penance. Parāśara (VIII. 28-29) ordains⁷³ 'brāhmaṇas should declare penance for sins with the king's consent, that they should not declare the expiation of sins by penance of their own motion and that if the king decides to give prāyaścitta without reference to brāhmaṇas, the sin becomes increased a hundred-folḍ' It is the duty of the pariṣad to declare an appropriate penance when a man comes to it, declares his lapse and seeks to be freed from the taint and if the pariṣad knowing what the appropriate penance is refuses to administer it, they incur the same sin as that committed by the man who approaches theṃ⁷⁴ Parāśara VIII. 2 prescribes that one should on being convinced of his having committed a sin at once repair to the assembly of learned men, should prostrate himself on the ground before them and request them to administer prāyaścitta (expiation). The Mit. on Yāj. III. 300 quotes Parāśara that the sinner should announce his sin after offering the present of a cow or a bull or the like to the pariṣaḍ

It will be shown immediately below that these rules of the smṛtis were observed to the letter by Hindu kings and learned brāhmaṇas in medieval timeṣ When the successors of Śaṁkarā-cārya began to interest themselves in the work done by the pariṣads for centuries before the advent of the first ācārya cannot be ascertaineḍ A large part of Northern India was under Moslem rule for about 500 years from about 1200 A. D. and a portion of the Deccan and a part of South India also were under Moslem rule for about three hundred yearṣ Numerous documents have been published by the late Mr. Vishvanath K. Rajwade (a scholar who made unique contributions to the elucidation of Maratha History, Marathi Philology and Marathi Literature) and his friendṣ From these it appears that during the time of the Maratha domination learned brāhmaṇas of holy places like Paithan, Nasik and Karad were consulted in religious matters by the king or his minister, that the holders of the ‘gādī’ of Śaṁkarācārya at Saṅkeśvara and Karavīra and other seats were also rarely consulted in these matters and that it is only after the advent of the British rule that ⁷⁵ the Śaṁkarācāryas have begun to claim almost exclusive jurisdiction in ecclesiastic matters and in restoring men to their castes or excommunicating them for lapseṣ It will be seen from passages quoted below that both the learned brāhmaṇas at holy places like Karad and the Śaṁkarācāryas claim the exclusive right in these matters by reason of immemorial usage.

In several works it is said that the pariṣad must be constituted by śiṣṭas (vide Gaut. 28. 46). Śiṣṭa is variously defined by some smṛti workṣ The Bauḍ ⁷⁶ Dh. S. (I. 1. 5-6) says ‘Śiṣṭas are those who are free from envy and pride, who keep only as much corn as is measured by kumbhī (vide p. 111 f. ṇ 235 ), who are free from greed and from hypocrisy, arrogance, covetousness, delusions and anger. Those are śiṣṭas who have studied the Veda according to the prescribed method, together with its appendages (viz. Itihāsa and Purāṇas ), who know how to draw inferences from that and who tend to make people realize the teaching of the Veda.’ The Mahābhāṣya defines śiṣṭas in almost the same words as Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 1. 5. Vaṣ Dh. S. 1. 6 defines śiṣṭa as one whose mind is free from desireṣ The Matsyapurāṇa⁷⁷ 145. 34-36 and Vayu, vol. I. 59. 33-35 derive the word śiṣṭa and restrict it to Manu, the seven sages and other similar great sages, who in each æon ( Manvantara or yuga ) settle the rules of conduct for succeeding ageṣ

It is well-known that Shivaji, the great founder of the Maratha Empire, established a council of eight ministers, viz. Mukhya Pradhāna, Amātya, Saciva, Mantri, Senāpati, Paṇḍita-rao, Nyāyādhīśa and Sumanta. ‘The jurisdiction of the Paṇḍitarão extended over⁷⁸ all religious matters, he was to examine and decide disputes about dharma and adharma, he was to honour śiṣṭas ( respectable people ) on behalf of the king, was to make his signature expressing his approval of the writings ( decisions ) about ācāra, vyavahāra and prāyaścittas ( made by learned brāhmaṇas ). He was to superintend and carry into immediate execution gifts, propitiatory rites (for the king).’ This shows that even in matters of prāyaścitta ( penance for lapses and sins ) the final control rested with the Paṇḍitarão, who used to send doubtful matters to learned brāhmaṇas at holy places like Wai, Nasik, Karad for their opinions and accept theṃ There are letters which show that the Paṇḍitarão convened meetings of learned brāhmaṇas and with their approval declared prāyaścitta in the case of a brāhmaṇa who had been forcibly converted by Mahomedans and who was thereafter restored to caste.

That sometimes the Pontiff of the Saṅkeśvara matha was consulted even in disputes about rights to lands and villages follows from a decision contained in Rao Bahadur Vad’s work pp. 203-210 ( of 1730 A. D. ). Here a dispute arose between Śrī-karācārya (to whom a village had been donated by king Rājārāma) and his agnates, who, taking advantage of the fact that the gift-deed was made in the name of five persons including Śrīkarā-cārya, put forward their claims to that village. This dispute was referred to the Svāmī of Saṅkeśvara and Karavīra who decided on the authority of Vijñāneśvara, the Vyavahārama-yūkha and the Dānakamalākara that though the document was executed in the name of five persons, the gift of the village with water, kuśa and gold was made to Śrīkarācārya alone and that therefore he alone was the true owner.

There are cases where the head of the Karavīra maṭha issued an order (in śake 1644 i. e. 1722 A. D.) asking people to dine with a brāhmaṇa whose wife had illicit connection with a gosāvī and who had performed the necessary prāyaścitta.⁷⁹

On the other hand in numerous instances the assembly of learned brāhmaṇas was approached either by the Paṇḍitarão or by the interested parties themselves to declare the proper penance and restore the guilty party to his caste.⁸⁰ Numerous documents and letters showing the part played by the family of Gijre at Karad (in the Satara District) in the matter of giving deci-sions on questions of dharma-śāstra have been published by the late Mr. V. K. Rajvade. One Gangadhara Ranganatha Kulkarni of Harsul⁸⁰ was forcibly converted by the Moslems; then the Maratha king Sambhaji ordered his minister the Paṇḍitarão to restore him to his caste after giving him appro-priate prāyaścitta and the Paṇḍitarão called a meeting of learned brāhmaṇas, looked into works like the Mitākṣarā and with the approval of the brāhmaṇas administered prāyaścitta to him and sent him on a pilgrimage. There is a similar case in which the Paṇḍitarão under orders from the king writes to the learned brāhmaṇas of Karad about the prāyaścitta to be administered to one Khandu Jadhav ⁸¹ who had been forcibly made by the Moslems to eat their food and in which he informs the brāhmaṇas that a fee of two rupees should be taken from the maṇ It may be noted in passing that Raje Netaji Palkar who was one of the great commanders under Shivaji, the founder of the Maratha Empire, was made a moslem by the Mogul Emperor Aurangzeb and was subsequently taken back into the Hindu fold by Shivaji. In another document ⁸² the learned brāhmaṇas of Poona, 46 in number, write to the brāhmaṇas of Karavira about one Narasimha Bhaṭṭa Toro of Paithan who had engaged as a priest in a Vedic sacrifice in which he had offered the effigy of an animal made of flour, who had therefore been made outcast and who was subsequently restored to the caste after undergoing penance.

The above brief account will show that for hundreds of years even before the first Śaṁkarācārya flourished it was the privilege of the assembly of learned brāhmaṇas to decide doubtful points of religious conduct and prescribe penances for lapses, that the same privilege continued undisturbed till the advent of the British rule, that rarely the heads of the maṭhas, by virtue of their eminent position, their supposed detachment from and renunciation of worldly affairs and their reputation as ascetics, were asked to decide (following Yāj. I. 9) doubtful points of religious and theological importance, that it is only during the last few decades that such heads began to claim exclusive jurisdiction in such matterṣ

It is desirable in the interest of the solidarity of the several Hindu castes and the rapid growth of progressive and advanced views that matters of practices, penances and restoration to caste should be in the hands of the bodies of learned men or the caste itself than in the hands of a single ascetic styling himself Śaṁkarācārya, who often happens to know nothing of dharma-śāstra and only puts his seal of approval on what interested persons that are round him say. After this review of the stage of saṁnyāsa we see that asceticism presents several aspects viz. fasting or at least reducing the intake of food, abstention from meat and drink and pleasures of sense, total absence of sexual gratification and suppression of the sexual emotion, vow of silence, sleeping on bare ground, nakedness or making use of minimum clothing, contempt for the world and its richeṣ The Hindu Scriptures however do not enjoin self-infliction of pain or flagellation that was indulged in by monks in the early centuries of Christianity. Asceticism in the several forms indicated above is a feature common to all religionṣ It is the fashion to assert that Indians²²¹ have the highest regard for asceticism and that the men whose memories they cherish as ideals of human conduct are asceticṣ This statement is only partially true. Christ also taught abandonment of worldly ties and the spurning of riches as the best for entering the Kingdom of Heaven (vide Matthew 19. 21, Luke 14. 26 and 33, St. John 2. 15–16 ). It is only during the last three or four hundred years that Western peoples have given up much of what was thought for centuries to be the main teaching of Christ and regard successful men of action or politicians or men of martial exploits as their ideals and heroeṣ In India also martial glory has often raised men to the position of heroes or avatāras, but only when they delivered their countrymen from the tyranny and persecution of evil men or foreignerṣ Paraśurāma, Rāma and Kṛṣṇa are avatāras because they fought against tyranny and barbarity and not because they brought as large a slice of the earth under their domination as possible for purposes of exploitation or vainglory. Martial exploits for self-aggrandisement or for domination for domination’s sake have never evoked great enthusiasm in India. Shivaji, the great hero of the Marathas, was paid almost divine honours even during his life-time not for his martial exploits, but for his having freed the Marathas and other peoples from Moslem tyranny, persecution, religious intolerance and fanaticisṃ