Sramana Tradation

Author(s): G C Pandey
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 74

Śramanic Critique of Brāhmanism
The Mīmāmsakas who were the champions of Brahmanical ortho. doxy sought to rehabilitate the most extreme view about the nature of caste. Kumārila stated in the Tantravārtika that Brahmanahood is not a mere collection of moral qualities, or a character produced by them or a species manifested by them. It is a physical class character which is apprehended in perception as aided by the knowledge of the person's heredity -'na ca tapa adinám samudayo brahmanyam na tajjanitaḥ saņskāraḥ na tadabhivyangyā jātiḥ/ kim tarhi ? mātīpitr jātijñānābhivyangyā pratyakşasamadhigamyā /'1 It may be recalled that the phrase 'na ca tapa ādinām samudayo brāhmanyam' recalls a view which was already mentioned by the Mahābhāsya. The Nyāyasudha? explains the Pūrvapaksa as asserting that since no distinct Brāhmaṇical form or appearance is apprehended, Brāhmanahood should be deemed an Upādhi or accident, not a jāti or species - 'na ca ksatriyādibhyo vyavitto brāhmaṇeșvanuvrtaḥ kaścidākāraviśeşo mātāpitrsambandhajñenāpi pratiyate / tasmād brāhmaṇādisabdavyapadeśyamátăpitrsantānajanmatvaupādhiko brāļmaņādiśabdo na jāti vacanaḥ/' One cannot apprehend a common and specific form for all the Brahmanas, which might be distinguished from the Kşattriyas etc. Thus one cannot do even by knowing the relationship with the parents. Hence the words Brāhmaṇa etc., refer not to a jāti but to an Upādhi depending on one's heredity. This is answered by saying that Jāti is a peculiar character which is not necessarily a distinct physical form - 'yaccākāraviśeso na pratīyata ityuktam/ tatra yadyākāraśabdena samsthānam mudrāparanāmadheyamabhi. pretam tatastasya jätitvānangīkārādadoṣaḥ, brāhmaṇapratyaya-vedyastu dharma-višeşo'nubhava-siddhatvannāpahnavamarhati/' As for the statement that one cannot perceive any specific physical character, it is not a relevant objection because we do not regard jāti as consisting in a visible physical character. This does not mean that we can deny the fact of an empirically attested characteristic corresponding to of Brāhmaṇabood. Brāhmaṇahood, thus, is known by perception aided by information about lineage and such information not being rendered suspect by rumours about its unreliability, would deserve to be accepted as true.' The whole argument rests on the assumption that
1. Tantra Vārtika, 1.2.2. 2. Vol. I, pp. 10-11.