________________
324
A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAN
(105.26). In the religious field the Brahmins are referred to as following Tápasadharma (Pingala 30.52; and one other Brahmin 5.30). Brahmaruci and his wife Kūrmi are referred to have been leading the Tāpasadharma in the forest (11.54).
The respectable position they held in the society can be inferred from such general remarks that even if they commit any guilt they should not be killed (35.15) and the noble persons never slay a Brahmin or a śramana (65.30). Thus the Brahmins occupied an equal position with the śramaņas. But the PCV criticises those Brahmins who bore deplorable conduct. It mentions that there was no paucity of pretending Brahmins who were really unchaste, sensuous and characterless (105.46). They injured living beings, acted contrary to the practice of a true ascetic and demonstrated undue pride. True Brahmins in the opinion of the author were those who devoted themselves to penances, who were of good conduct, who maintained purity, who observed vows of forbearance and forgiveness, who did not give vent to the passions and stuck to the path of liberation (105.46-48). It indicates that those who led the life of renunciation, simplicity and high-thinking deserved to be called as Brahmins.
There are several instances to show that vices had crept into the life of the Brahmins. The reverence and the privileges which were granted to them by the Brahmanical Sūtras and Smrtis were not wholly enjoyed by them. The PCV refers to the Brahmins committing murder and adultery wiih the wife of a grhapati (48.64), or with the woman of his own caste (30.61) or with the wife of an ambassador (39.42). Mụdumati was immodest, criminal, very cruel and was addicted to the vice of gambling. He attempted to commit burglary and used to keep company of courtezans (82.79,79). Purohita Satyavādi was expelled from the country on account of swindling the wealth of a merchant (5.34). A Vipra was, though on account of being betrayed by a queen, punished to the severity of mutilation of the limbs of his body (88.12). Rudrabhūti on account of committing theft was awarded the death penalty (34, 46). These examples sufficiently prove that they were not immune from proper punishments. In this light the injuction of the Brahmanical Sūtras that a Brahmin must not be subjected to corporal punishment, must not be imprisoned or fined or exiled or reviled or excluded, was not rigidly followed. The heckling of rude behaved Kapila by Laksmana (35. 13) and the beating of Brahmins by Rāvana (11. 90) belie the dictum that he who in anger
1. Gautama, 8. 12-13 Vide OGCI, Vol. I p. 158, and also Avadhyo Brāhmaṇo
danļairiti sāstravido viduḥ--VR, 7.59 2. 34.
