No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Scrupulousness is associated, where it occurs spontaneously, with certain personality-types, and with certain neurotic conditions. A scrupulous person is somewhat difficult to live with. Where it is a cultural constant, and is observed in and by a whole mass of indiscriminate humanity, it is another phenomenon. The Jewish civilization is familar with the double standard. There is the norm, to which everyone should conform: and there are two extremes, that of the Men of Sodom, who are the dogs in the manger, who will never do the righteous thing even if it costs them nothing, and, on the other hand, the ḥasidm, who are scrupulous. The double standard implies that there are persons, and groups who are voluntarily associated, who choose to be more careful than the average, and though their scrupulosity does not impugn the righteousness of the average, it provides some kind of control upon it, and vice versa. Even the average are exhorted in the Mishnah to build a fence about the Law. This is a normative principle of Pharisaic origin, to the effect that one should so conduct oneself as never to place oneself within reach of breaking the negative commandments. This is scrupulosity, and the difference between the average observant Jew and the Hasid is (in this respect) that the Hasid will pursue the principle, if need be, to his own cost. A good example of the Mishnaic principle in general practice was the 39 stripes: a man was flogged 39 times, so as not to infringe the biblical precept of 40 lashes: one kept just within the margin of the Law.
1 Mishnah, , Aboth, I. 1Google Scholar (Danby, H., The Mishnah, Oxford, 1933, 446).Google Scholar
2 Kane, P. V., History of dharmastra, V,Google Scholar contains exhaustive investigations of the relations of all schools of Indian philosophy to dharmastra. He makes no mention of Jainism.
3 See Denett, , Essays in classical and modem Hindu law (hereafter ECMHL), IV, Leiden, 1978, 394414 (on Hemcrya).Google Scholar
4 Ancient Indian nonsense vindicated, JAOS, XCVIII, 1978, 1006.Google Scholar In an unpublished doctoral thesis (Philadelphia, 1978, 79 ff.Google Scholar) R. Lariviere regards my explanation as futile, for in his view the contradictions between the texts, which are basic, are to be referred not to reason but to custom: out of what the custom emerged is not considered.
5 Jha, G., Manu-smṛti. Notes. Part III. Comparative, Calcutta, 1929, 81113.Google Scholar
6 Kane, , op. cit., II, pt. 1,Google ScholarPoona, , 1941, 12630, is devoted to our topic.Google Scholar
7 Aiyangar, K. V. Rangaswami, Aspects of the social and political system of Manusmrti, Lucknow, 1949, 121,Google Scholar says, freedom to roam from occupation to occupation leads to baneful and ominous competition, and the substitution of self-interest for the common good. Even if obliged to follow the profession of the Vaiya, a Brhmana must avoid some of them. See also p. 122: A man of a high varṇa sinks to the level of a lower by continuous pursuit of the avocations allowed only to the latter. It is disappointing that Motwani, K., Manu Dharma stra: a sociological and historical study, Madras, 1958, ignores the topic.Google Scholar
8 Banerji, S. C., Dharma-stras: a study of their origin and development, Calcutta, 1962, 181;Google Scholar the same, Aspects of ancient Indian society as revealed in the dharmastras, Gang, J.. Jha Res. Inst. (Allahabad), XVI, 1958 1959, 49 f., 55 (Vasistha), 88 (Gautama):Google Scholar there is no attempt to offer any explanation. Nor was there in Bhattacharya, B., The Kalivarjyas, Calcutta, 1943, 5659.Google ScholarValavalkar, P. H., Hindu social institutions, Bombay, 1939, cites MBhS (see below) at 301, and Manu, Yjavalkya, and Viṣṇu at 302, but offers no explanation at either place.Google Scholar
9 One might have expected a comment from Ruben, W., Die Gesellschaftliche Entwicklung im alten Indien I. Die Entwicklung der Produktionsverhltnisse, Berlin, 1967. He does not approach the question in any of the periods handled.Google Scholar
10 Lingat did not approach the topic in his Classical law of India, Berkeley, 1973.Google Scholar There is no mention of it in L. Sternbach's extensive juridical studies of ancient Indian law. No explanation is offered at Gampert, W., Shnezeremonien, 1939, 40 (no. 34), 1601,Google Scholar or Hopkins, E. W., The mutual relations of the four castes, Leipzig, 1881, 28, 83.Google ScholarSharma, R. N., Brahmins through the ages, Delhi, 1977, mentions the rules at pp. 12931, adopts Kane's explanation of sesame at 130, and copies the explanationGoogle Scholar of Dutt, N. K. (Origin and growth of caste in India, Calcutta, 1931, 146) that they were necessary to distinguish one caste from another (!).Google Scholar
11 I must excuse Macfie, J. M., who says (The laws of Manu: a summary in English with introduction and notes, Madras, 1921, 99, n. 1),Google Scholar No explanation is given as to why it is so great a sin in a Brhman to sell sesamum, nor why he can so easily evade the sin and its punishment by battering it for grain (!). Rocher, L. in Caste occupations in classical India: the normative texts, Contributions to Indian sociology, NS, IX, pt. 1, 1975, 14051, deals with the exceptions to a Brahman's right to live as a Vaiya at pp. 1489, but no explanation is offered (the article is sustained praise of Manu).Google Scholar
12 ECMHL, II, Leiden, 1977, 378.Google ScholarColebrooke, H. T., whose knowledge of Hindu law in its sources has been surpassed by no EuropeanGoogle Scholar (see Mller, F. Max, Chips from a German workshop, IV, London, 1875, 377417)Google Scholar said, A Brhmaṇa, unable to subsist by his own duties may gain a competence by traffic, avoiding certain commodities (Miscellaneous essays, ed. Cowell, E. B., II, London, 1873, 166). And that was all. Quod tali placuit, eius alias non pudebat.Google Scholar
13 On the early, but highly systematic, juridical ethnologist, Giuseppe Mazzarella, see ECMHL, II, Leiden, 1977, 42468.Google Scholar
14 He gives particulars of Nrada at Studi di etnologia giuridica (SEG), III, Catania, 1913Google Scholar = Etnologica analitica dello antico diritto indico (EAADI), I, 301,Google Scholar 437 (habitual actions considered; rigorous separation of castes); Yjṇavalkya at SEG, X = EAADI, VIII, 1932, 548 (rules purely religious, having economic consequences);Google Scholarpryacittas at SEG, XII =EADDI, X, 1934.Google Scholar Only at SEG, XV = EAADI, XIII, 1937, 245Google Scholar, when he deals with the stras, does he try to explain: the items listed are of the greatest importance and competition with the Vaisyas should be avoided, since they had an explicit monopoly. But, alas, fruit, flowers, water, milk, sugar, grass, etc., are not important in his sense!
15 On the duties of the ancient Indian king see my ch. xi, Social and political thought and institutions, in Basham, A. L. (ed.), A cultural history of India, Oxford, 1975, with the bibliography at pp. 5056,Google Scholar and Rulers and ruled in India, in Recueils de la Socit Jean Bodin, XXII, Brussels, 1969, ch. xiv.Google Scholar
16 Manu III. 76 and other primary sources are handled at ECMHL, I, 356.Google Scholar
17 Bau.II. 2. 4, 18; Manu X. 81.
18 Bau. II. 2. 4,1921, Manu X. 823.
19 Manu IX. 326333, X. 80.
20 p. 127: prohibition of sesamum because of the connection with rddhos, etc.
21 Kane places Gautama, pastamba, Baudhyana, and Vasiẓṇha promiscuously in the period 600 B.C. to 300 B.C. Mahvra, or Vardhamna, the apostle of Jainism, is said to have belonged to the sixth century B.C., but it is not pretended that he invented Jainism, which itself drew on a pool of archaic ascetic notions (Caillat, C., Atonements in the ancient ritual of the Jaina monks, Ahmedabad, 1975, 7).Google Scholar
22 Gaut. VII. 821 (= I. 7. 821 in the nandrama ser. ed. with the commentary of Haradatta, Poona, 1931). For a translation of Gautama see Bhler, G., Sacred laws of the Aryas (SLA), I = Sacred Books of the East (SEE), II, second edition, Oxford, 1897, 21113.Google Scholar
23 p. I. 7. 20, 1013 (I have used the text edited by Bhler, (Bombay Sanskrit Ser.), third edition, Bombay, 1932, 37Google Scholar. For a translation see Bhler, , SLA, I = SBE, II, second edition, Oxford, 1897, 723.Google Scholar
24 Bau. II. 2, 2729 (for a translation see Bhler, , SLA, II = SBE, XIV, Oxford, 1882,Google Scholar repr. Benares, , 1965, 221), cf. II. 4, 19 (p. 236).Google Scholar
25 Vas. II. 2431. Text ed. Fhrer, A. A., (Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Ser., 23), Poona, 1930.Google Scholar For a translation see Bhler, , SBE, XIV (sup.), 1213.Google Scholar
26 Manu X. 8594 (for Bhler's trans see SBE, XXV, Oxford, 1886, 4202)Google Scholar. I have used Manu's text as published with commentaries of Bhruci, Medhtithi, and Kullka. My translation in Bhruci's Commentary on the Manu-smṛti, Wiesbaden, 1975, II, 326, v. 88,Google Scholar should be corrected to read milk, corrosive substances, curds .
21 Y II. 368. This comes in the penance section. For a translation (with the Mitkṣar) see Naraharayya, S. N., The sacred laws of the Aryas as taught in the school of Yajnavalkya, III, Allahabad, 1913, 823.Google Scholar
28 Viṇṇu LIV. 1821 (also in the penance section). The text is now available with the commentary of Nanda-paṇḍita, Adyar, 1964. For a translation of the stra see Jolly, J., The Institutes of Vishnu, SBE, VII, Oxford, 1880, 1778.Google Scholar Kane dates Viṣṇu 100300 A.D.
29 ankha-likhita's passage is reprinted from Aparrka by Kane, , op. cit., II, 128, n. 280.Google Scholar
30 Kane gives the references ibid. There are two passages: MBh at MBh V. 38. 5, and MBhS at MBh XII. 78. 46. For Rmyaṇa II, 75.Google Scholar 37 see Dharma, P. C. at Ann. Bhand. Or. Res. Inst., XIX, 1938 1939, 140.Google Scholar
31 The text of the Nrada-smṛti edited by Jolly, , Calcutta, 1885, 645Google Scholar (tr. Jolly, SBE, XXIII, Oxford, 1889), 578Google Scholar (II falsely I, 617) and the Nradya-manusuṃhit in the Trivandum Sanskrit ser. differ slightly. A critical text of Nrada is awaited. Nrada II falsely I, 186 (on incompetent witnesses) supports w. 5663.
32 A source for these later texts is Aparrka's commentary on the Yjavalkya-smṛti (nandrama ser.), 1904, used by Kane, and Lakṣmdhara, Kṛtyakalpataru II, Gṛhasthakṇḍa, ed. Aiyangar, K. V. Rangaswami (Gaekwad's Or. Ser. 101), Baroda, 1944, 11, pp. 198205, which Kane did not use.Google Scholar
33 Amongst digests see Laksmdhara. cit. sup. This is used by Caṇḍevara, , Gṛhastharatnkara, Calcutta, 1928, 43342,Google Scholar who shows some variations. Hemdri, , Caturvargacintmaṇi IV (Pryacitta-khanda), Calcutta, 1911, 1347.Google Scholar See also Nlakaṇṭha-bhaṭṭa, , Pryacitta-maykha, ed. Dhupakar, A. Y., Bombay, 1940, 224 ff.;Google Scholar Madanapla (pseud. Vivevara-bhaṭṭa), Madana-prijta, Calcutta, 1893, 232.Google Scholar Blambhaṭṭa writing on the Yjvalkya-smrṭi with Mitkṣara and the Dharmasindhu of Kintha (inf.) take the learning into the last century, where it is confirmed by Dubois, J. A., Hindu manners, customs and ceremonies, Oxford, 1906, 292.Google Scholar I reserve for treatment elsewhere the role of these rules in the courts. See also Radhakantadeva, Raja, ed. abdakalpadruma, revised edition III, Calcutta, 1889, 353Google Scholar, based on lapṇi's Pryacitta-viveka.
34 II. 67.
35 This kalivarjya appears no earlier than the Smṛti-candrik (mid-13th century), whence it is copied by Hemdri (126070) and Mdhava (133560). Kintha Updhyya in his Dharmasindhu (17901) says, padi kṣatravaiydi-vṛittiṃ vipra kalau tyajet (Bhattacharya, sup., 11). Kane, , History of dharmasstra, III, Poona 1946, 954, 34. In Kane's view the list of kalivarjyas was not compiled before the 10th century (p. 968).Google Scholar
36 Bhattacharya, B., op. cit., 59;Google Scholar Kane, From ancient times till now Brahmins have pursued all sorts of avocations and hardly any importance has been attached to this dictum.
37 Sharma, R. N., Brahmins through the ages: their social, religious, cultural, political and economic life, Delhi, 1977.Google Scholar
38 Mahbhrata (MBh) XII. 269. 4.
39 Vas. XIV. 2. 3, 5. For the yamas see Caṇḍesvara, , ubi cit., 506 ff.Google Scholar
40 Manu II. 177 (abstention from honey, meat, perfumes, garlands, rasas, women, sour substances, and injuring living creatures), 179 (hurting others). See Aiyangar, K. V. Rangaswami, introductionGoogle Scholar to Lakṣmdhara, , op. cit., Brahmacri-kṇda.Google Scholar
41 Manu IV. 54, 170, 1756 (v. 177 is very reminescent of Jain teaching), 179185, 246. Kane, , History of dharmastra, II, 411 ff.Google Scholar
42 Jha, , Manu-smṛti. Notes. Part III. Comparative, 8045.Google ScholarDerrett, , Critique of modem Hindu law, Bombay, 1970, 469.Google ScholarKlaes, N., Conscience and consciousness, Bangalore, 1975, 734Google Scholar (onanrsamsya see pp. 7981, 134).
43 Williams, R., Jairia Yoga, London 1963, 117.Google Scholar For Digambaras, ibid., 1213.
44 ibid., 117, n. 1, These occupations are noticeably similar to those prohibited for a brahman who maintains himself as a dra .
45 ibid., 39 ff., 110 ff. Samantabhadra, , Ratnakaraṇḍa-rvakcra, ed. Jain, C. R., Arrah, 1917, 66.Google ScholarHandiqui, K. K., Yaastilaka and Indian culture, Sholapur, 1949, 2623.Google ScholarSogani, K. C., Ethical doctrines in Jainism, Sholapur, 1967, 79, 89, 100Google Scholar (even the householder should avoid wine, meat, honey, and five kinds of fruit (udumbaras)). For the prohibitions binding on the Jain monk see Deo, S. B., History ofJaina monachism, Poona, 1965, 1712. The items coincide with our list.Google Scholar
46 Walli, K., The conception ofahimsa in Indian thought, Varanasi, 1974.Google Scholar
47 Williams, , op. cit., 11723.Google Scholar Early references: Hoernle, A. F. R., Uvsagadaso, II, Calcutta, 1888, 2830;Google ScholarStevenson, S., The heart of Jainism, Oxford, 1915, 21214;Google ScholarJaini, J., Outlines of Jainism, Cambridge, 1916, 712;Google ScholarJain, J. C., Life in ancient India as depicted in the Jain canons, Bombay, 1947, 106 (fifteen despised occupations);Google ScholarSchubring, W., The doctrine of the Jainas, Delhi, 1962, 299.Google Scholar
48 For the eight offences for which a lay-follower's bowl can be turned over (meaning to say the monks will not eat with him until he is rehabilitated or restored) see Cullavagga V. 20,Google Scholar trans. Davids, T. W. Rhys, Vinaya texts (SBE XX), III, Oxford, 1885, 118ff.Google Scholar; more recently Horner, I. B., Book of the Discipline, V, 173 and notes.Google Scholar The eight offences include speaking ill of the dhamma, not to speak of defying it! Note that the Jain monk may not accept from a person who is engaged in grinding com, pounding sesamum, etc.: Deo, , History of Jaina monachism, 3015,Google Scholar utilizing Piṇḍa-niryukti 572604;Google Scholar see also Deo, , 283.Google Scholar
49 Manu VIII. 317. Cf. Manu III. 181, 158; IV. 205222.
50 Jaina Yoga, 117.Google Scholar
51 Strakṛtṅgastra I. 1. 13. Ratnakaraṇḍa-rvakcra (sup.), 53, 72 (pp. 27, 36).
52 Williams, , Jaina Yoga, 1256.Google ScholarRatnakaraṇḍa-rvakcra, 856.Google Scholar
53 Lakṣmdhara, , Gṛhastha-kṇḍa, 2045.Google Scholar
54 cf. Manu XI. 143, 145.
55 The yellow pigment is rocan. For the bogus verse and its variant readings see Jha, G., Manu-smṛti. Notes. I. Textual, Calcutta, 1924, 473;Google ScholarLakṣmdhara, , ubi cit. sup., 200;Google ScholarCaṇḍesvara, , op. cit. sup., 434.Google Scholar
56 Brahma-jlasutta. Dialogues of the Buddha, trans., Davids, T. W. Rhys, pt. 1, London, 1899, 67.Google Scholar For the penances see Manu XI. 142, Y III. 276, Viṣṇu L. 48.
57 Ginger appears prominently amongst the items forbidden to the Jain monk (along with barley, sesamum, and treacle): Deo, , History ofJaina monachism, 171.Google Scholar
58 Sen-Gupta, S., Food prohibitions in smrti texts, JASB (Letters), XXII, 1956, 163 ff., at 201.Google Scholar
59 Gode, P. K., Studies in Indian cultural history, I, Hoshiarpur, 1961, nos. 10 and 11.Google Scholar
60 For Paiṭhnasi and Uanas see Lakṣmdhara, , Gṛhastha-kṇḍa, 203.Google Scholar
61 Forest-produce in ancient India notoriously included yak-tails, lac, fruit. Maity, D. K., Economic life of northern India in the Gupta period, Calcutta, 1957, 901.Google Scholar
62 Garments dyed in indigo. Pryacitta-maykha, Bombay, 1940, 2067.Google ScholarCaillat, , op. cit., 91, n. 3.Google Scholar
63 Vikṛti means modification. Williams, , op. cit., 38Google Scholar (kṣra and ghṛta are included). The four rasas are listed, ibid., 40. Comparable with the Jain vikṛiti is the Hindu word vikra (transformation) as used in Bhruci's discussion of distilling of liquor at his commentary on Manu XI. 9394 (my Bhruci, trans., II, 375).
64 For a brief history of the Brahmins' taboo on intoxicants see Kane, , op. cit., III, 9646.Google Scholar On the age of distillation see Allchin, F. R., India: the ancient home of distillation?, Man XIV, 1979, 5563,CrossRefGoogle Scholar referring to Mitra, R., Spirituous drinks in ancient India, JASB, XLIII, 1873, 123.Google Scholar
65 Williams, , op. cit., 40, 55, 70, 119.Google Scholar Honey was forbidden to the Jain monk: Deo, , History of Jaina monachism, 172, 19.Google Scholar
66 ibid., 112 (see below, p. 00 for a Hindu parallel).
67 Williams, , 125.Google Scholar
68 Manu III. 68, cf. 69. Some commentators take upaskara to mean, not specifically broom, but a utensil. Williams, , 122, 123.Google Scholar
69 Manu IV. 85, cf. 86.
70 Williams, , 52. See above, p.Google Scholar
71 Manu III. 267. Kane, , History of dharmaastra, II, 127.Google Scholar
72 Williams, , 52.Google Scholar
73 Manu VI. 1121 (note however the preference for fruits that have fallen spontaneously, and the avoidance of anything growing on ploughed land, or village roots or fruit). Even the muni-brhmaṇa lives on roots and fruit (Atri-smṛti, see p. 156, n. 95 below).
74 Williams, , 53.Google Scholar
75 p. II. 71, X. 20, 12, atapatha-brfimaṇa III. 3. 3. Ktyyana, VII. 8, 27.Google Scholar Manu III. 158, 180; Vas. XIV. 3, Y I. 165, all cited by Bhattacharya, B., op. cit., 434;Google Scholar cf. Kane, , History of dharmaastra, II, 1141.Google Scholar
76 Smṛtyarthasra of rdhara (c. 1150) quoted by Bhattacharya, ibid., 4. Kane, , op. cit., III, 952, 30.Google Scholar
77 Mukhopadhyaya, G., History of Indian medicine, I, Calcutta, 1923, 189204;Google ScholarWasson, R. G., Soma and fly-agaric, Cambridge, Mass., 1972;Google ScholarSoma: divine mushroom of immortality, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
78 Handiqui, K. K., op. cit., 260.Google ScholarWilliams, , 70.Google ScholarRaveau, R., L'adaptation des lois de Manu chez les Jaina d'apres Hemacandra (in the Yogastra), JA, 1957, 26772.Google Scholar
79 Chaff, , ashes, and bones are not to be stood on by a sntaka.Google ScholarJha, , op. cit., 297, on Manu IV. 78 (q.v.).Google Scholar
80 Williams, , 111.Google Scholar
81 Land: references at my ECMHL, II, 1977, 4012.Google Scholar
82 ibid., 4, n. 18, 24.
83 See above, p. 150, n. 58.
84 Bhruci ad X. 834. At IV. 70 Manu's rule for the sntaka is very Jain-like: let him not crush earth or clods, nor tear off grass with his nails; let him not do anything that is useless or will have disagreeable results in the future. IV. 71: a man who crushes clods, tears off grass, or bites his nails, goes soon to perdition . Cf. p I. 32,18; Gau IX. 32. Bau II. 69. Cf. Krma-purṇa II. 16, 56Google Scholar (ed. Varanasi, 1972). Devala at Lakṣmdhara, , Gṛhasthaknda. 398;Google Scholarankha-likhita, ibid., 400. Hrta, ibid., 191: sahasnaṃ lṅgalam (the plough is like a slaughter-house), tat brhmaṇa na vidyate. pady cariiatvd yadi kuryd yathrthaṃ kuryt.
85 And they can be found as goldsmiths and coppersmiths! Glasenapp, H. v., Der Jainismus. Eine indische Erlsungsreligion, Berlin, 1925, 324. Sad reflections at MBh III. 199 on the destruction of living beings in nature have a decidedly Jain ring about them, though they tend to show that ahims is Utopian.Google Scholar
86 See Manu II. 242. Kumrila-bhaṭṭa, Tantravrtika on Jaimini, , Mmṃs-stras, I. 3. 1114Google Scholar (Sarkar, K. L., Mmns rules of interpretation as applied to Hindu law, Calcutta, 1909, 244;Google ScholarJha, G., Prva-mmṃs in its sources, Benares, 1942, 242).Google Scholar
87 On Manu X. 90 (defying the obvious sense): svayaṃ kṛṣy kṛṣvala iti pryiko nuvdo, na vivakṣitni padni. pratigrahdyarjitnm apyapratiṣedhaḥ (p. 1010).
88 Mitkṣai on Y III. 49, quoting Nrada.
89 Parara-mdhavya. cra, 431,Google Scholar cited by Jha, at Manu-smṛti. Notes. II. Explanatory, Calcutta, 1924, 784.Google Scholar
90 Manu X. 92, 93. Brahmins who live by trade are to be treated as dras: Bau I. 5. 10, 24. Brahmins who sell at any one time cotton and the four named metals become members of the pacla caste (smiths), presumably if they do not perform their penance: Hemdri, , ubi cit,Google Scholar gives a long quotation from the Mahnradya on the penances. Ghoshal, U. N., The status of Brhmanas in the dharmastra, Indian Historical Quarterly, XXIII, 1947, 83 ff., at p. 90.Google Scholar
91 The earliest statement is at Gau VII. 1621. pastamba phrases the permission in negative terms first: I. 7. 20, 14.
92 Gau VII. 1621, p I. 7. 20, 15; Manu X. 94; Y III. 39 with Mitkṣar.
93 See p. 154, n. 85 above.
94 Jtaka no. 495 in V. FausbII (ed.), Jtaka, IV, London, 1887, 361,Google Scholartrans. Rouse, W. H. D. in Cowell, E. B. (ed.), The Jtaka, IV, Cambridge, 1901, 22731.Google Scholar Translator's note at p. 229. Pick, R., Die sociale Gliederung in nordstlichen Indien zu Buddha's Zeit, Kiel, 1897, 1489Google Scholar (referring to Manu X. 87). Law, B. C., India as described in early texts of Buddhism and Jainism, London, 1941, 150.Google ScholarSingh, M. M., Life in northeastern India in preMauryan times, Delhi, 1967, ch. 2 and pp. 79, 208, 21617, 2245, 2301, 2312.Google Scholar
95 Quoted by Kane, , op. cit., II, 1301.Google Scholar
96 On Nradya-manusaṃhit, Trivandrum, 1929, II. 64,Google Scholar Bhavasvmi explains tla as cotton from that tree. The reading kleya (a plant) in the same half-line takes the place of Jolly's reading as shown above (Calcutta, 1885, 645).
97 Or we can translate anything split off by itself, split bamboo . Bhavasvmi on II. 65 says he forbids bamboo twigs that have milky sap in them. The value of the dry twigs is that there is less life in them.
98 The Brahmin's preference for pure white garments is notorious to this day. For the custom in the period 101730 see Alberuni's India, ed. Sachau, E. C. (reprinted New Delhi, 1964), II, 132 (abhorrence of indigo).Google Scholar
99 Boudhyana Dharmastra with the Vivarana Commentary of ri Govinda Swm, ed. Sastri, A. Chinnaswami (Kashi Sanskrit Ser., CIV), Benares, 1934, 123.Google Scholar
100 On the udumbaras and their seeds see Williams, , 53, also p. 111.Google Scholar
101 Va I. 2, 38. Because there are three Sanskrit names for Ziziphus jujuba Lam. and its cultivation dates from ancient times Thomas, C. C. (The Chinese Jujube, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Bull. 1215, 1924) maintains that it is native to India as well as south-western China and Malaya.Google Scholar
102 Citrons are mentioned along with other cultivated fruit at Raychaudhuri, S. P. and others, ed.., Agriculture in ancient India, New Delhi, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 1964, 63, 80.Google Scholar Medical works (e.g. Suruta-saṃhit 46, w. 7283) and lay literature refer to both badarabadira and iṅguda. The iṅguda is a tree planted also for its shade. Both were cultivated for flowers and fruit. Yet the literature need not be many centuries posterior to the naturalization of an exotic. I am obliged to Dr A. W. Exell, formerly of the Natural History Museum, and to Susyn Andrews, Assistant Scientific Officer at the Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew) for a variety of information on these trees. Sanskrit poetrv knows the badara fruit as a symbol of worthlessness: Sternbach at JAOS, XCIX, 1979, 163!Google Scholar
103 Deo, , op. cit., 171, 16.Google Scholar yraṅga II. 1. 8, 115, trans. Jacobi, H., SBE, XXII, Oxford, 1884, 10810.Google Scholar
104 Above, n. 7. p. 145, n. 15 and p. 146, n. 34.
105 For example, as a penance offenders must give metals and metal objects: Gau XXII. 23, 25; Y III. 273. Roots and fruits appear: Manu IV. 29, (and honey) 247, (and many of our items) 250; Va XIV. 12; ginger (see above p. 150, n. 58); sacrificial ingredients: Manu III. 247. Sesamum is to be given: Manu IV. 229, 233, cf. ibid. 1889; Y III. 274, but notice the sntaka's taboo at Manu IV. 75 (eating after sundown was a typical Jain vice!). Hemp, flax, and wool are to be worn: Manu II. 412. For kua and balbaja see ibid., 43, 183, III. 208, 210, 2556, IV. 36. Vegetables: Manu II. 246.
106 It is well known that Brahmins should not eat garlic. A long list of forbidden foods appears at Manu V. 456. Sen-Gupta, , ubi cit. sup.Google Scholar
107 ECMHL, I, 1976, 268.Google Scholar
108 Williams, , 1212.Google ScholarJain, J. C., op. cit., 104, 106, 139, 143.Google Scholar
109 Hfer, A., Khumbu Himal, XIII, 2, 1979, 119 and 175.Google Scholar That, after all, was recommended to the Jain agriculturalists: Williams, 122. Brahmins cleaving wood are mentioned at Patajali, , Mahbhṣya III. 4, 69.Google Scholar Brahmins following many pursuits including that of trade: Vseṭṭha-sutta at Sutta-nipta no. 35, p. 122. Brahmins ploughing and selling forest animals: Law, , op. cit., 160.Google Scholar
110 Derrett, , The concept of duty in ancient Indian jurisprudence: the problem of ascertainment, in O'Flaherty, W. D. (ed.), The concept of duty in South Asia, Delhi and London, 1978, 27.Google Scholar
111 ECMHL, I, 1976, 20716.Google Scholar
112 Sattha-, satta-, maṃsa-, majja-, and viṣa-vanijj. Aṅguttara-nikya. ed. Hardy, E., III, London, 1896, iii. 208 = vii (177);Google Scholar translated by Hare, E. M., The Book of the Gradual Sayings, III, London, 1934, 153.Google ScholarThe Manorathapraṇi, III, ed. Kopp, H., London, 1936, 303Google Scholar says that mamsameans that he breeds and sells pigs, deer, etc., and so on. Wagle, N., Society at the time of Buddha, Bombay, 1966, 146.Google Scholar
113 Yjavalkya-smṛti with the Mitkṣar, ed. Pansikar, W. L. S., Nirṇayasgara ed., Bombay, 1909, 436.Google Scholar
114 Very similar information is in Medhtithi on Manu XI. 142 fsic, Calcutta edition, 196971, II, 1072. I have no doubt but that Vijianevara had Medhtithi before him. Medhtithi was not copying Bhruci here (e.g., XI. 142143).