Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

mixed religious and metaphysical enquiry. We think the friends of Christianity, as well as of education simply considered, would do good service by procuring versions of it into the several vernaculars of the country, for dispersion among the pandits, as well as among the alumni of our numerous schools and colleges. As however, the pamphlet in its present form may not reach many, Missionaries and others particularly, who would be happy to be furnished with at least its general principles or line of argumentation, we proceed to make a few extracts from the most applicable, in ordinary cases, of its reasonings. In page 7-the ingenious author proceeds thus :

"If, again, you say that Brahmanhood depends on parentage or birth (játi); that is, that to be a Brahman one must be born of Brahman parents-this notion is at variance with the known passage of the Smritt, that Achala Muni was born of an elephant, and Cesa Pingala of an owl, and Agastya Muni from the Agasti flower, and Cousika Muni from the Cusa grass, and Capila from a monkey, and Gautami Rishi from a creeper that entwined a Saul tree, and Drona Acharya from an earthen pot, and Taittiri Rishi from a partridge, and Parswa Ráma from dust, and Sringa Rishi from a deer, and Vyasa Muni from a fisherwoman, and Koshika Muni from a female Sudra, and Viswa Mitra from a Chandulni, and Vasishtha Muni from a strumpet. Not one of them had a Brahman mother, and yet all were notoriously called Brahmans; whence I infer that the title is a distinction of popular origin, and cannot be traced to parentage from written authorities.

"Should you again say, that whoever is born of a Brahman father or mother is a Brahman, then the child of a slave even may become a Brahman; a consequence to which I have no objection, but which will not consort with your notions, I fancy.

"Do you say, that he who is sprung of Brahman parents is a Brahman? Still I object that, since you must mean pure and true Brahmans, in such case the breed of Brahmans must be at an end; since the fathers of the present race of Brahmans are not, any of them, free from the suspicion of having wives, who notoriously commit adultery with Sudras. Now, if the real father be a Sudra, the son cannot be Brahman, notwithstanding the Brahmanhood of his mother. From all which I infer, that Brahmanhood is not truly derivable from birth; and I draw fresh proofs of this from the Manava Dharma, which affirms that the Brahman who eats flesh loses instantly his rank; and also, that by selling wax, or salt, or milk, he becomes a Sudra in three days; and further, that even such a Brahman as can fly like a bird, directly ceases to be a Brahman by meddling with the flesh pots.

"From all this is it not clear that Brahmanhood is not the same with birth: since, if that were the case, it could not be lost by any acts however degrading. Knew you ever of a flying horse that by alighting on earth was turned into a pig ?-'Tis impossible."

Again, in page 8, we have the following :

"Say you that wisdom* constitutes the Brahman? This too is incorrect. Why? Because, if it were true, many Sudras must have become brahmans, from the great wisdom they acquired. I myself know many

Author's note. Perhaps it should rather be translated learning. The word in the original, is unyana.' Better written jnyána.-Reviewer.

Final beatitude or absorption into the Divine fulness.-Reviewer.

Sudras who are masters of the four vedas, and of philology, and of the Mimansa, and Sanc'hya and Vaisheshika and Jyotishika philosophies; yet not one of them is or ever was called a Brahman. It is clearly proved then, that Brahmanhood consists not in wisdom or learning. Then do you affirm that the Achar (performance of pious acts) is Brahmanhood? This too is false; for if it were true, many Sudras would become Brahmans; since many Nats and Bháts and Kaivertas, and Bhands, and others, are everywhere to be seen performing the severest and most laborious acts of piety. Yet not one of these, who are all so pre-eminent in their Achár, is ever called a Brahman: from which it is clear that Achár does not constitute the Brahman."

Having thus given the negative argument, he proceeds positively as follows:

"What then is this creature called a Brahman? If neither reading the Vedas, nor Sanskar, nor parentage, nor race (Kula), nor acts (Karam), confers Brahmanhood, what does or can? To my mind Brahmanhood is merely an immaculate quality, like the snowy whiteness of the Kundh flower. That which removes sin is Brahmanhood. It consists of Vrata and Tapas, and Niyama, and Ripavas, and Dan, and Dàma, and Shama, and Sanyama. It is written in the Vedas that the gods hold that man to be a Brahman who is free from intemperance and egotism, and from Sanga, and Parigraha, and Praga, and Dwesha. Moreover, it is written in all the Sastras that the signs of a Brahman are these; truth, penance, the command of the organs of sense, and mercy; those of a Chándala are the vices opposed to those virtues. Another mark of the Brahman is a scrupulous abstinence from sexual commerce, whether he be born a god, or a man, or a beast. Yet further, Sukra Acharya has said, that the gods take no heed of caste, but deem him to be the Brahman who is a good man, although he belong to the vilest. From all which I infer, that birth, and life, and body, and wisdom, and observance of religious rites (achár), and acts (karam), are all of no avail towards becoming a Brahman."

Next, quoting some passages from the Mànava Dharma or Laws of MANU, usually interpreted in support of Brahmanical superiority and depreciation of the other castes, but which this writer very ingeniously, and we think justly, turns directly against such positions, he proceeds :-(We leave the author's Romanization untouched.)

"From all these assertions of the Manàva Dharma, it is clear that Brahmanhood is nothing indefeasibly attached to any race or breed, but is merely a quality of good men. Further, it is written in the Sastra of Manu, that many Sudras became Brahmans by force of their piety; for example, Kathinu Muni, who was born of the sacrificial flame produced by the friction of wood, became a Brahman by dint of Tapas; and Vasishtha Muni, born of the courtezan Urvasi; and Vyasa Muni, born of a female of the fisherman's caste; and Rishiya Sringa Muni, born of a doe; and Vishva Mitra, born of a Chandalni; and Nared Muni, born of a female spirit-seller; all these became Brahmans by virtue of their Tapas. Is it not clear, then, that Brahmanhood depends not on birth? It is also notorious that he who has conquered himself is a Yati; that he who performs penance is a Tapasya, and that he who observes the Brahma charya is a Brahman. It is clear, then, that he whose life is pure, and his temper cheerful, is the true Brahman; and that lineage

(Kula) has nothing to do with the matter. There are these slokas in the Manàva Dharma. "Goodness of disposition and purity are the best of all things; lineage is not alone deserving of respect. If the race be royal and virtue be wanting to it, it is contemptible and useless." Kathina Muni and Vyasa Muni, and other sages, though born of Sudras, are famous among men as Brahmans; and many persons born in the lowest ranks have attained heaven by the practice of uniform good conduct (sila). To say therefore that the Brahman is of one particular race is idle and false." Your doctrine that the Brahman was produced from the mouth, the Kshatriya from the arms, &c. cannot be supported. Brahmans are not of one particular race. Many persons have lived who belonged to the Kaivarta kul, and the Rajaka kul, and the Chandal kul, and yet, while they existed in this world, performed the Chura karan, and Manj-bandan, and Dant-kashtha, and other acts appropriated to Brahmans, and after their deaths became, and still are, famous under the Brahmans."

He then, passing from the specific argument against the exclusiveness of Brahmin privilege, to the case of caste in the abstract, thus continues :

"All that I have said about Brahmans you must know is equally applicable to Kshatriyas; and that the doctrine of the four castes is altogether false. All men are of one caste.

"Wonderful! You affirm that all men proceeded from one, i. e. Brahma; how then can there be a fourfold insuperable diversity among them? If I have four sons by one wife, the four sons, having one father and mother, must be all essentially alike. Know, too, that distinctions of race among beings are broadly marked by differences of conformation and organization: thus the foot of the elephant is very different from that of the horses that of the tiger unlike that of the deer; and so of the rest : and by that single diagnosis we learn that those animals belong to very different races. But I never heard that the foot of a Kshatriya was different from that of a Brahman, or from that of a Sudra. All men are formed alike, and are clearly of one race. Further, the generative organs, the colour, the figure, the ordure, the urine, the odour and utterance of the ox, the buffalo, the horse, the elephant, the ass, the monkey, the goat, the sheep, &c. furnish clear diagnostics whereby to separate these various races of animals: but in all those respects the Brahman resembles the Kshatriya, and is therefore of the same race or species with him. I have instanced among quadrupeds the diversities which separate diverse genera; I now proceed to give some more instances from among birds. Thus, the goose, the dove, the parrot, the peacock, &c. are known to be different by their diversities of figure, and colour, and plumage, and beak: but the Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra are alike without and within. How then can we say they are essentially distinct? Again, among trees the Báta, and Buku/a, and Palas, and Ashoka, Tamal, and Nagkeswar, and Shirik, and Champa, and others, are clearly contradistinguished by their stems, and leaves, and flowers, and fruits, and barks, and timber, and seeds, and juices, and odours; but Brahmans, and the Kshatriyas, and the rest, are alike in flesh, and skin, and blood, and bones, and figure, and excrements, and mode of birth. It is surely then clear that they are of one species, or

race.

“Again, tell me, is a Brahman's sense of pleasure and pain different from that of a Kshatriya? Does not the one sustain life in the same way, and find death from the same causes as the other? Do they differ in intellectual faculties, in their actions, or the objects of those actions; in the man

[blocks in formation]

ner of their birth, or in their subjection to fear and hope? Not a whit. It is therefore clear that they are essentially the same."

And, finally, he shews wherein real Brahmanhood, or moral superiority, consists:

"The distinctions between Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, are founded merely on the observance of divers rites, and the practice of different professions; as is clearly proved by the conversation of Baisham Payana Rishi with Yudhisthira Raja, which was as follows: One day the son of Pandu, named Yudhisthira, who was the wise man of his age, joining his hands reverentially, asked Baisham Payana, Whom do you call a Brahman; and what are the signs of Brahmanhood? Baisham answeredThe first sign of a Brahman is, that he possesses long-suffering and the rest of the virtues, and never is guilty of violence and wrong-doing; that he never eats flesh; and never hurts a sentient thing. The second sign is, that he never takes that which belongs to another without the owner's consent, even though he find it in the road. The third sign, that he masters all worldly affections and desires, and is absolutely indifferent to earthly considerations. The fourth, that whether he is born a man, or a god, or a beast, he never yields to sexual desires. The fifth, that he possesses the following five pure qualities: truth, mercy, command of the senses, universal benevolence, and penance. Whoever possesses these five signs of Brahmanhood I acknowledge to be a Brahman; and, if he possess them not, he is a Sudra. Brahmanhood depends not on race (Kula) or birth (Jati), nor on the performance of certain ceremonies. If a Bhandál is virtuous, and possesses the signs above noted, he is a Brahman. Oh! Yudhisthira, formerly in this world of ours there was but one caste. The division into four castes originated with diversity of rites and of avocations. All men were born of woman in like manner. All are subject to the same physical necessities, and have the same organs and senses. But he whose conduct is uniformly good, is a Brahman ; and if it be otherwise, he is a Sudra; aye, lower than a Sudra. The Sudra who, on the other hand, possesses these virtues is a Brahman.

“Oh, Yudhisthira! If a Sudra be superior to the allurements of the five senses, to give him charity is a virtue that will be rewarded in heaven. Heed not his caste; but only mark his qualities. Whoever in this life ever does well, and is ever ready to benefit others, spending his days and nights in good acts, such an one is a Brahman; and whoever, relinquishing worldly ways, employs himself solely in the acquisition of Moksha, such an one also is a Brahman; and whoever refrains from destruction of life, and from worldly affections and evil acts, and is free from passion and backbiting, such an one also is a Brahman; and whoso possesses Kshema, and Daya, and Dama, and Dán and Satya and Souchana, and Smritti, and Ghrina, and Vidya, and Vijnan, &c. is a Brahman.”

In the concluding sentence of this admirable little piece, the judicious author thus declares his object in its composition :

"Oh, my friend, my design in the above discourse is, that all ignorant Brahmans and others should acquire wisdom by studying it, and take to the right way. Let them, if they approve it, heed it; and if they approve it not, let them neglect its admonitions."

[ocr errors]

"The word in the original is Tapas, which we are accustomed to translate penance,' and I have followed the usage, though asceticism' would be a better word. The proud Tapasyi, whom the very gods regard with dread, never dreams of contrition and repentance." Author's note.

The above will, we think, satisfy our readers that the Vajra Súchí is a work of large merit though of small extent, and that it is well deserving of the estimation in which the joint editors hold it. Our Missionary friends, particularly, will be glad to be furnished with the principle, as well as with some of the most valuable portions of the detail, of its arguments. They are, we know, fully prepared to agree with Mr. Wilkinson in reference to the amazing obstacle which this most unnatural and perverse institution of caste opposes to the progress of our divine faith, and will therefore heartily rejoice in the appearance of a purely native work, of great clearness and vigour, directed against its supporters. It is of the highest moment unquestionably, to be able to shew, (even from those shasters affected at least to be so much, if not in all cases really revered,) the human and recent origin of an institution which, while it cramps the intellectual energies and rivets on the chains of an absurd and noxious superstition, at the same time so debases the human character, corrupts the moral sense, deadens the best affections of the heart, and is calculated only to hold the mass of men in a condition of abject mental and social servitude to a crafty and oppressive tribe of priestly dominators.

Mr. W.'s preface thus well depicts some of the more prominent mischiefs resulting from the rules of caste :—

"There is no evil in Indian Society, which has been so much deplored by those anxious to promote the enlightenment of the people, as the institution of caste. It opposes an almost insuperable barrier to the ad vancement of every class of the people. Whenever a youth, better educated than his neighbours or naturally gifted with keener powers of discernment, begins to shew his contempt for any debasing and superstitious observance, or a heartfelt desire to abandon any vicious custom by which he observes the morals of his countrymen to be corrupted, or to remove any restriction on the freedom of men's thoughts and actions, his caste forthwith taking alarm at these dangerous innovations, assembles, condemns his heterodoxy, and passes on him a sentence of excommunication more severe than the aquæ et ignis interdictio" of the Romans, and only less so than the penalties of the Papal inquisition.

"If our young Philosopher possess strong nerves and an unusual degree of independence of mind and spirit, he may persist in maintaining the eternal truth and beauty of his new doctrine, and inveigh against the ignorance, prejudice and injustice of his fellows: by this means he only exasperates his adversaries, and thus forfeits altogether his respect (with) and influence over them, and with these his power of conferring any benefit upon them.

"If our young Philosopher be made of softer stuff, he yields, out of respect to the feelings of parents, brothers, and sisters, that submission to the requirements of custom which he might withhold from the dictation of his caste. His submission to practices which his heart condemns as foolish, is thus liable to be quoted by others as a proof of their reasonableness. Thus, in both cases, truth is sacrificed or despised, the spirit of improvement is overborne and repressed, and the majority of the ignorant, prejudiced and superstitious triumph in the sacrifice of those who would

« AnteriorContinuar »