________________
488
Albrecht Wezler
"A Slap on the face of the Brahmins"
489
the way it is formulated, viz, rajñapy ahirpisayam (p. 8b, 1.12), may be suspect in so far as the verses subsumed under it do not really deal with the "abstaining from injury, or killing, by the king, 100", but rather proclaim the ideal of the just or righteous king who indeed fulfills his central duty of "protecling" his subjects.
yatra sarve samasanti sa vai brāhmana ucyate II brālvano brahmacaryena yatha Silpena silpikah/ anyatha na mamatran syād indragopakakavat //12
Therefore, onc cannot but agree with the editors according to whose "Table of Contents" the last topic dealt with in the Vedänkuša is brālynanarvasiddhi. "establishing what constitutes a Iru c) Brahmin (according to our tradition)."13
Now this second part of the Vedänkusa is introduced by three Slokas which run thus (30b. 14-31a.1):
1.2. The second part of the Vedätkusa is not only clearly demarcated from the first part by the latter's concluding statement (p. 30b, 1.13) ili mahabharatasmrtipurānādigatadharmaflokäh, already mentioned above, but it is also of a distinctly different character: Although it contains similar quotations, both in verse as well as in prose, it is now the author of the Vedärkusa himself who speaks on his own behalf, and what he wishes to express he states almost right at the beginning, viz. p. 31a, 1.211.: yat tavat kenacid uktam-sarvapradhānā brāhmaṇā ii/ tar ko 'yam brālmano nāma?" kim sarirena? kim järyä? kim jlvena? kiyi kulena? kim yonya? kim
jñānena? kim Saucăcărena? kim tapasā? kim saskāreņa vā? iti / eteşām madhye kena brähmano bhavati? iti bravitu kaści(d) brāhmanas fatpaksapar val.
Already at first sight it is perfectly clear that ki Sarirena, etc., are but rhetorical questions, or rather questions asked merely to be answered in the negative, and without further elaboration and uncompromisingly at that. Indeed, the author does not waste any time, but immediately starts his refutation of the implied propositions, addressing them one after another in the sequence of their enumeration, viz. p. 31a, 1.6ff. SarTrena tavan na bhavati brahmanah / katham? brālmanaksatriyavaisyasūdrasartränäm avisesås, kir ca sukrasonitamajjästhisyamadivarnayauvanādinär ca bhedabhāvāt; kim ca mrtasya brähmanasya sarfradahane jatinam tathāgner[I] brahmahatyā syat I ato jñāyate śarīrena tävad brāhmaṇo na bhavati, and so forth.
But as one might expect he is not content simply to prove in this manner that none of these nine factors (sarfra, jāti, etc.) can be regarded as constituting brahminhood, but continues his argument by expressing his own opinion, viz. p. 32b, 1.8[f.:
vastutatvaviinanām ajñāsiddhividhayinām / căturvarnottamo viprah khyātah pujitah satkriah II ya ime vrsalā hlnäs te bhikṣāvratakarmaņi/ na deyam tepu na grāhyam varnair anyaih kadacana II paksapalam parityajya praslave'smin vicāryate / nyāyamargan gataih sadbhir yuktayuktapariksakaih II. Brahmins are declared to be the highest in rank) of the four warnas, are revered and received as honoured guests by those (only) who lack the true knowledge of things for: of reality and who execute the orders of the Brahmins exactly and devotedly. [The Brahmins, or those siding with them, say that those mean men who have lost their caste by the omission of their prescribed duties (and who have deserted from the true faith by becoming Jain monks) and who are engaged in ob serving the vow (of living on food obtained by begging (only). - these (men] should never be given anything) by (members of the other varnas (i.e. the Brahmaras, Ksatriyas and Vaisyas (and Südras?)) nor should these latter) accept (anything from them as a gift for: believe anything (they say). Good men showever) who are able to examine what is correct for: a valid argument) and what is not and who have chosen the path of logical lor: rational argumentation, will at this point of the exposition (which seems proper) impartially consider (scil. whether this contention of the Brahmins, and the opinion of the people who obey them blindly, is at all defendable and tenable).
Thus, the author of the Vedarikuśa, who at the very beginning of the second part of his work clearly announces what he intends to do, addresses himself not only to the problem of brāhunan atvasiddhi (in the sense explained
yo vāhayati papāni sa vai brāhmana ucyale / dānasllaksamd virya dhyanaprajiddayo gunah/