Vasistha Dharmasutra

by Georg Bühler | 1882 | 44,713 words

The Dharmasutra of Vasistha forms an independent treatise and has no relationship with the Kalpasutra. The chapters of this text are divided in a way that resemble the practice of later Smritis. This Dharmasutra has a unique characteristic, it cites the opinions of Manu at many places. This led scholars like Bühler among others to form a hypothesis...

Chapter XVIII

1. They declare that the offspring of a Śūdra and of a female of the Brāhmaṇa caste becomes a Cāṇḍāla,[1]

2. (That of a Śūdra and) of a female of the Kṣatriya caste, a Vaiṇa,

3. (That of a Śūdra and) of a female of the Vaiśya caste, an Antyāvasāyin.

4. They declare that the (son) begotten by a Vaiśya on a female of the Brāhmaṇa caste becomes a Rāmaka,[2]

5. (The son begotten by the same) on a female of the Kṣatriya caste, a Pulkasa.

6. They declare that the (son) begotten by a Kṣatriya on a female of the Brāhmaṇa caste becomes a Sūta.[3]

7. Now they quote also (the following verse): 'One may know by their deeds those who have been begotten secretly, and to whom the stigma of springing from unions in the inverse order of the castes attaches, because they are destitute of virtue and good conduct.'[4]

8. (Children) begotten by Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, and Vaiśyas on females of the next lower, second lower, and third lower castes become (respectively) Ambaṣṭhas, Ugras, and Niṣādas.[5]

9. (The son of a Brāhmaṇa and) of a Śūdra woman (is) a Pāraśava.

10. They declare that the condition of a Pāraśava is that of one who, though living, is (as impure) as a corpse.[6]

11. Some call that Śūdra race a burial-ground.[7]

12. Therefore (the Veda) must not be recited in the presence of a Śūdra.

13. Now they quote also the (following) verses, which Yama proclaimed:

'The wicked Śūdra-race is manifestly a burial-ground. Therefore (the Veda) must never be recited in the presence of a Śūdra.'

14. 'Let him not give advice to a Śūdra, nor what remains from his table, nor (remnants of) offerings (to the gods); nor let him explain the holy law to such a man, nor order him (to perform) a penance.'[8]

15. 'He who declares the law to such a man, and he who instructs him in (the mode of) expiating (sin), sinks together with that very man into the dreadful hell, (called) Asaṃvṛta.'

16. 'If ever a worm is produced in an open wound (on his body), he shall purify himself by the Prājāpatya penance, and give gold, a cow, (and) a garment as presents (to Brāhmaṇas).'[9]

17. Let him not approach a wife of the Śūdra caste after he has built the fire-altar for a Śrauta-sacrifice.

18. For a Śūdra-wife who belongs to the black race, (is espoused) for pleasure, not in order to fulfil the law.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

XVIII. Viṣṇu XVI, 6.

[2]:

Kṛṣṇapaṇḍita reads Romaka, 'a Roman,' for Rāmaka, and the B. MS. supports him. The other MSS., including I. O. 913, give the reading adopted above. I prefer it, as there is no reason to assume that the Vāsiṣṭha Dharmaśāstra belongs to the late period when the Hindus had become aware of the existence of the Roman empire. On the other hand, it may be urged that Romaka is a correction which would easily suggest itself to a Paṇḍit, who was unable to find a parallel passage in which the word Rāmaka occurs.

[3]:

Viṣṇu XVI, 6.

[4]:

Manu X. 40.

[5]:

Gautama IV, 16.

[6]:

I omit the words śava iti mṛtākhyā, 'a corpse is another name for one who has died,' as an interpolation.

[7]:

Āpastamba I, 3, 9, 9. 12. Viṣṇu XXX, 14.

[8]:

-15. Identical with Manu IV, 80-81.

[9]:

A Prājāpatya penance, i.e. a Kṛcchra, see below, XXI, 20. p. 96 The verse belongs rather to the section on penances, and seems to have been entered here merely because it stood in Yama's text with the other two, and the author, to use a homely Indian comparison, 'did not disdain to catch a fish, though he went to fetch water.'

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: