________________
180
Dr. Shirmfelicitrion Vol.
Wezler -... Patañjala yogašāstravirarana
181
but a social fact of immense importance), but it also includes the distinction between the four stages of life in the developed, i.e. final theoretical form of this conception according to which ideally one has 10 run through four successive and different ways of life of both these quadruple divisions it is said that each member is the sustaining cause of the reminig three, respectively, owing to the fact that each of them helps or supports all the others. .
A modern exegete, at least in the West, might feel tempted 10 take this statement to mean that the four rarnas and the four aśramas are here considered to be on a par with each other. It is, however, evident that such an interpretation would be utterly wrong. Clearly any idea of social equality was absolutely alien to the Vivaranakāra, too," who cannot but have shared the conviction that hierarchical value is intrinsic to the 'classes' as well as to the stages of life, - a conviction not only common to Hindus in general. but also regarded by many classical Indian authors as the essential constitutive element of Hindu society. Clearly the Vivaranakära does not think in the least of calling into question this hierarchical structure, not to speak of criticizing or refuting it. It is more than probable that he would have uncompromisingly attacked anyone who dared to come up with such an idea.
yatha va yum samāśritya sarve jivanti jantavah 1 tathā grhastham asritya varianta itarasramah // yasmåt.frayo 'py aśramino jnanenanena canyalam
grhasthenaiva dharyante tasmaj jyesthāśramo grham 11 but they are all evidently intended to counter the tendency to a onesided over-evaluation of the various forms of ascetic life and to give instead the householder's life and his production capacity its due by cmphasizing his overall economic importance for the other, viz. non-productive' sections of society. In the present case this intention could hardly be more explicit than in Manu 3.78d, i.e. by claiming - with marked selfconfidence the highest rank for gårlasthya," and in Manu 3.78b, i.e. by pointing out the important role the (Brahmanical) householder plays in transmitting the Veda and imparting knowledge of the vedartha." But to remind the bralımacarins, vanaprasthas," and sarnyasins of the fact that the food they eat is given to them and ultimately produced by the grhastkas and that the Vedic knowledge they are to acquire is imparted to them) by this group alone), is tantamount 10 pointing out to then they depend on the householders for their very subs. istence, Yet that the dependence is clearly conceived of here not as a mutual, but as a unilateral one, is strikingly confirmed by the comparison in verse 3.77ab, ie, by paralleling the function of the grhastha to that of prano, on which Medhatithi aptly remarks " na hy aprūnasya jivitam asti, pränadharaṇam eva jivanam. Just as in terms of physiology the life of each and every "breathing being" (prānin) depends completely on prāna, so too the other aśramas depend completely on the grhastha as regards their subsistence etc..
There is hence nothing 'revolutionary' in what the Vivaranakära says about the varna and aśrama systems, but nevertheless there is something in it which deserves our full attention, viz. the explicitly stated idea, which forms the very gist of the sentence under discussion here, that the four varnas and the four aśramas support and thus sustain each other mutually, that none of them is able to get along without the others. This is, indeed, something excitingly new, for, as far as I can see, no such idea is found expressed anywhere else, including the vast Dharma śāstra literature.
The concept of mutual dependence is, however, met with within the framework of traditional Indian ideas about kingship. The (lawful) ruler is entitled to claim a particular gift from his subjects, and even from hermits," as compensation for his affording protection to them, etc, Yet, in this case, too," what we have to do with is a dichotomic division of society, although it is an individual, viz. the king, and not a group of people
There are admittedly statements like that of Manu 3.77 and 78: