Indian Antiquary Vol 61

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 81

APRIL, 1932)
THE NÅGAR BRAHMANS AND THE BENGAL KAYASTHAS
placed under this Gana along with the Gautamas and Bharadvájus? If the Gotras founded by the Eight Sages can alone be called Gotras, then Vishnuvsiddhas and Kanvas cease to be Gotras, because Vishnuvsiddha and Kanva are not included among the Eight Sages. Nor is Angiras mentioned as one of these Sages. The conclusion is therefore irresistible that the idea that all the Gotras were derived from the Eight Rishis was a later introduction and that the Gotra system was originally of an entirely different formation. It seems that just as we find Gana, Kula and Sakhas in the Jaina brotherhood, so the Brahmans were in ancient times divided into Gana, Paksha and Gotra in the clescending order. Of these the term Gana has survived only in the case of the Bhrigus and the Angirases, and we shall not be very wrong if we suppose that all the other Gotras, such as the Atris, the Visvâmitras and so forth were originally taken to be Ganas.
Again, the Gotra system in the earlier period had different exogamous rules. All the Gaņas or the comprehensive Gotras, except the Bhrigus and the Angirases, had one cornmon custom in regard to marriage, namely, if there were even one Pravara common to any two families they were looked upon as of the same Gotra. This, however, was not so in regard to the other two Ganas. In their case, as we have noticed above, if among five Pravaras there were three common, then alone the sameness of Gotra was established and marriage prohibited. Similarly, in the case of families with three Pravaras, marriage was forbidden between two families if they had two Pravaras in common. What is strange, however, is that among the Tryársheya Pravaras of both these Caņas, no two Pravaras are found common in the lists set forth by the Srautasůtras. Why the rule was laid down, namely, that in the case of the Tryårsheyas two Pravaras constituted the sameness of Gotra, is inexplicable. Probably Tryârsheyas of this description were forgotten even in the time of the Srautasätras.
APPENDIX B. It may be asked why the Kåyasthas of Bengal have come to observe asancha for a period of one month like ordinary Sūdras if they were originally Brahmans. How social tyranny was practised by one caste upon another is too well-known to require any elucidation. How the Prabhu-Kayasthas of Maharashtra were being compelled by the Peshwas to give up their right to the upanayana ceremony and how the Sarasvatas of Maharashtra were being declared non-Brâhmans by some other Brahman castes of the province simply because they nte fish are matters of history. The Prabhu-Kayasthas and the Sarasvatas successfully withstood the opposition, but the Kayasthas of Bengal seemed to have succumbed vo it. Again, do the Bengal Brahmans themselves observe áchára in strict conformity with the Srauta- or Dharma- sûtras! If we carefully scan the Pravaras of these Brâhmans, we notice many interlopers. One has only to consult the Gotra-pravara-viveka chapter of Dhanañjaya's Dharmapradipa. Thus Viśvamitra Gotra has the following Pravaras: Visvâmitra, Marichi and Kaushika, whereas the Srautasůtras enumerate Vaišvamitra, Daivasravask and Daivatarasa. How Marichi and Kaushika were imported into this Gotra is far from clear. Similarly, the Atri Gotra in Bengal has the following Pravaras: Atri, Atreya and Satâtapa, as against Atreya, Archananasa and Syåvåsva of the Srautasůtras, and the Agasti has the Pravaras: Agasti, Dadhîchi and Jaimini as against Agastya, Dardhachyuta and Aidhmaváha of the Srautasútras. How these insertions arose in the Pravaras of Bengal is inexplicable. But this much cannot be doubted, that the Bengal Brahmans have Pravaras quite unknown to and unsanctioned by the Srautasůtray. It may however be contended that these Gotras pertain to the Vaidiks and not to the Radhis, who are therefore purer in achara. It is true that there are no interpolations in the Pravaras of the latter, but there is something objectionable in one or two of their marriage customs. It is scarcely necessary to add that what is called svajan-akshepa or marriage within prohibited degrees was prevalent, until very recently, among the Radhi Brahmans (Vanger játsyaitihasa, 2nd ed., Brahmaņa-kânda, Vol. J. Pt. I. p. 189). Secondly, it is perfectly intelligible if a Ganguli does