The system of āśramas , along with that of the varṇas , is traditionally viewed as constituting the very core of Hinduism expressed in the pithy compound varṇāśramadharma— “dharma of the varṇas and āśramas .” The growing centrality of āśramas is evidenced in the opening verses of Manu and post-Manu writers. Even though the āśrama system is integral to the structure of Manu’s work, the initial question (1.1) of the seers only pertains to the dharma of varṇas , whereas in Yājñavalkya (1.1) and in Viṣṇu (1.48) the question refers to the dharma of both varṇas and āśramas . Like the varṇas, the āśramas also number four: student, householder, forest hermit, and wandering ascetic. Unlike the varṇa system, however, the āśrama system is very much the creation of the Dharmaśāstric tradition; the earliest descriptions of it come solely from the Dharmasūtras and they are embedded with an intense debate about its legitimacy. 1
A relatively new term in the Sanskrit vocabulary, āśrama does not occur in the Vedic literature or even in the early Upaniṣads. In all likelihood, the term originated as a neologism, a word coined at a particular time in Indian history to express a novel idea or to indicate a novel phenomenon or institution. Like the two etymologically related terms śrama (ascetic toil) and śramaṇa (ascetic), āśrama is linked to new religious modes of life connected with asceticism. It has two related meanings. The first—and possibly the earlier meaning—is that of a residence or hermitage, often located in forests, where people devoted to asceticism live and perform religious austerities. This is by far its most common meaning; it is so used in Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jain literary sources, as well as in non-religious texts such as drama, poetry, and fables. The second meaning of the term is that of a religious or holy way of life. The latter is, in all likelihood, a technical usage, as it occurs exclusively in Brahmanical literature and mainly within the context of the āśrama system.
As first articulated in the early Dharmasūtras, the āśrama system envisages four distinct and legitimate modes of religious life. The system originated as a theological construct, and āśrama in its technical usage within the system is a theological concept. The system, therefore, is only indirectly related to the institutions that underlie it and are the subject of its theological evaluation. In other words, the institutions existed prior to and outside of the system, which imparts to them a particular theological valuation. The purpose of this theological innovation was to create a scheme within which the pivotal category of dharma could be extended to include religious modes of life different from that of the Vedic householder. Its architects were not, as is often assumed, the reactionary defenders of orthodoxy, but “liberal” reformers bent on leading the Vedic tradition in new directions. The āśrama system can thus be seen as a structure for inclusion aimed at managing diversity not by eliminating it but by recognizing and including diverse religious modes of life within an overarching theological system. In this sense, it was a forward-looking and reformist scheme rather than a defensive wall put up by beleaguered conservatives.
The newly discovered history of the term gṛhastha and its underlying mode of life as divergent from and related to the pravrajita , discussed in Chapters 1 and 9 , however, provides a new lens through which to explore the origins of the āśrama system. 2 In the classification provided by Aśoka (Rock Edict 12, Pillar Edict 7), the various religious groups identified as pāṣaṇḍa are presented as comprising two kinds of members: pravrajita, that is, people who have wandered forth, as the Buddhist texts say, “from home to the homeless state,” and gṛhastha , that is, “the stay-at-home” members, who opted to remain at home following the household life while still belonging to and following the tenets of his or her pāṣaṇḍa . What is remarkable is that Aśoka in his Pillar Edict 7 identifies one pāṣaṇḍa as Brāhmaṇa. Thus it appears that for Aśoka, the Brahmanical pāṣaṇḍa also comprised two kinds of persons: pravrajita and gṛhastha . I want to propose that this religious formation was at the root of the creation of the āśrama system.
The conclusion that the Brahmanical pāṣaṇḍa group had both pravrajitas and gṛhasthas based on Aśoka’s inscriptions is confirmed by the novel institution of the four āśramas invented by some segments of the Brāhmaṇas connected in some measure also to the new genre of literature known as Dharmaśāstra (Chapter 1 ). Now, one may ask how the twofold division of pāṣaṇḍa corresponds to the fourfold division of the āśramas . If we look closely at the four āśramas , however, we find that they actually represent two institutions each subdivided into two. The man who chooses to “stay at home,” the gṛhastha , is contrasted with the man who chooses to “go forth,” the pravrajita . The former, however, includes the brahmacārin , that is the student of the Veda who chooses neither to return home and get married nor to go forth as a pravrajita , but who opts to stay on permanently at his teacher’s home devoting himself to Vedic studies. Instead of creating a new household, one’s own gṛha with wife and sacred fire, he remains part of his teacher’s household, serving the teacher’s wife, son, or fire after the teacher passes away.
The man who chooses to “go forth” also has two options: he can become a vānaprastha, forest hermit, or a wandering mendicant variously called bhikṣu, parivrājaka, pravrajita, muni , and yati . Significantly, the verb pravrajati applies to both these institutions. This is demonstrated by the way Āpastamba, the author of the oldest extant Dharmaśāstra, introduces the two institutions with identical phrases:
atha parivrājaḥ | ata eva brahmacaryavān pravrajati || (ĀpDh 2.21.7–8)
Next, the wandering ascetic. From that very state (brahmacarya ), remaining chaste, he goes forth.
atha vānaprasthaḥ | ata eva brahmacaryavān pravrajati || (ĀpDh 2.21.18–19)
Next, the forest hermit. From that very state (brahmacarya ), remaining chaste, he goes forth.
The conclusion that both the wandering ascetic and the forest hermit belong to the category of pravrajita is also supported by an interesting statement in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. In his discussion of the janapada or countryside (as opposed to the pura , city or fort), he lists people and groups who should be barred from entering or living in the janapada . In this context, he states: vānaprasthād anyaḥ pravrajitabhāvaḥ —“any kind of pravrajita other than forest hermits” (AŚ 2.1.32). Here pravrajitabhāva , the category of pravrajita, includes the vānaprasthas , who alone are permitted to reside within the janapada .
The list of the āśramas given by Āpastamba further confirms this 2 × 2 view of the four: catvāra āśramā gārhasthyam ācāryakulaṃ maunaṃ vānaprastham iti —“There are four āśramas : the householder’s life, living at the teacher’s family, the life of a sage, the life of a vānaprastha ” (ĀpDh 2.21.1). Here, departing from the normal enumeration, we have the householder placed ahead of the student and sage (muni ), by which is meant the parivrājaka (see ĀpDh 2.21.7), ahead of the vānaprastha , pointing to the latter two being variants or subcategories of the former two. Thus, I think, the original formulation of the āśrama system found in the Dharmasūtras can be seen as an elaboration of the actual demography within the ancient pāṣaṇḍa groups as described by Aśoka, groups that according to him included the Brāhmaṇas. The expansion of Aśoka’s two into four can be readily explained by the centrality that “4” played in Brahmanical thought: four Vedas, four varṇas , four yugas , and the like. There is one element in the āśrama elaboration, however, that is crucial and significant.
Aśoka’s discussion of pāṣaṇḍa assumes and, indeed, celebrates religious pluralism, or at least the pluralism of pāṣaṇḍa communities. They are viewed as many and on an equal footing, in spite of Aśoka’s partiality to the Buddhist saṅgha . In the same inscription (Pillar Edict 7) Aśoka lists four specific pāṣaṇḍa communities: Buddhist, Brahmanical, Ājīvaka, and Jain. The āśrama system, on the other hand, eliminates this pluralism, making Vedic initiation followed by Vedic studentship obligatory on all members of the three upper varṇas (Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, and Vaiśya) as the gateway to the āśramas, an initiation that makes them twice-born (dvija : Chapter 1 ). The four āśramas are the only legitimate modes of religious life and are open only to members of these three twice-born varṇas . Thus, the Śūdras and other lower classes of society, who are viewed as having a single birth, are excluded from religious modes of life and relegated to the margins of society and religion. Brahmanical hegemony is thus imposed on the whole of society. Brāhmaṇas are not simply one pāṣaṇḍa among many. The system of āśramas makes both Brāhmaṇas and the other two upper classes part of a single system of religious living; it comprehends all the upper echelons of society. The term pāṣaṇḍa is given, pari passu , a pejorative meaning, referring to the “other,” the excluded ascetic orders, who are equated with Śūdras by Manu.
Two ingredients of the original formulation of the āśrama system also betray its dependence on the pāṣaṇḍa division into gṛhastha and pravrajita . First, āśramas are permanent modes of life rather than life stages. Second, they are voluntary modes of life; a person chooses one āśrama in which he will spend his adult life. Both of these can be seen as reflecting the reality of the gṛhastha and pravrajita within the pāṣaṇḍa organizations.
Given that the system is first articulated in the early Dharmasūtras, its dating is to some degree dependent on the earliest date assigned to Āpastamba, the author of the oldest extant Dharmasūtra. I have argued (Chapter 1 ) that he cannot be dated too much earlier than the third century. Thus the āśrama system was invented probably in the third century bce or a bit earlier. 3 We have to distinguish the early formulation of the system that envisaged the four āśrama as lifelong and voluntarily adopted vocations from what I have called the “classical system” created around the time of Manu, that is, the second century ce . The classical system presents the āśramas as stage of life through which a person ideally passed, paralleling the system of saṃskāras or rites of passage.
There are several unique features of the original formulation of the āśrama system found in the Dharmasūtras that both distinguish it from the classical system and provide significant insights into the theological reasoning that led to its creation: (i) āśramas are permanent modes of life; one is expected to live in one’s āśrama of choice all one’s life; (ii) āśramas are adult vocations and are unrelated either to adolescence or to old age and retirement; (iii) they are envisaged as alternate and equally legitimate modes of life; (iv) a person is permitted to choose freely one of those modes; (v) the person competent to make that choice is a young adult male who has completed his Vedic studentship; (vi) the period of temporary studentship following Vedic initiation is not considered an āśrama ; confusion is often created because both share the common name brahmacarya . The āśrama of a student (brahmacārin ), like all others, is also an adult vocation and the subject of a permanent choice made after completing the temporary studentship. It is carefully distinguished from the latter in these documents.
The clearest and most succinct account of this early formulation of the āśrama system, along with a description of the lifestyle of each āśrama , is given by Gautama:
He 4 has a choice, some assert, among the āśramas : student, householder, mendicant, or anchorite. The householder is their source, because the others do not produce offspring.
Among these, the rules of a student have already been given. He shall remain subject to his teacher until death and engage in soft recitation during any time that remains after attending to his teacher’s business. When his teacher is no more, he should serve his son; and if there is no son, an older fellow student or the sacred fire. A man who conducts himself in this manner attains the world of Brahman and becomes a man who has mastered his senses.
All these rules of a student apply to people in subsequent āśramas as well, so long as they are not inconsistent with the provisions specific to each.
A mendicant shall live without any possessions, be chaste, and remain in one place during the rainy season. Let him enter a village only to obtain almsfood and go on his begging round late in the evening, without visiting the same house twice and without pronouncing blessings. He shall control his speech, sight, and actions; and wear a garment to cover his private parts, using, according to some, a discarded piece of cloth after washing it. He should not pick any part of a plant or a tree unless it has fallen of itself. Outside the rainy season, he should not spend two nights in the same village. He shall be shaven-headed or wear a topknot; refrain from injuring seeds; treat all creatures alike, whether they cause him harm or treat him with kindness; and not undertake ritual activities.
An anchorite shall live in the forest, living on roots and fruits and given to austerities. He kindles the sacred fire according to the procedure for recluses and refrains from eating what is grown in a village. He shall pay homage to gods, ancestors, humans, spirits, and seers, and entertain guests from all classes, except those who are proscribed. He may also avail himself of the flesh of animals killed by predators. He should not step on plowed land or enter a village. He shall wear matted hair and clothes of bark or skin and never eat anything that has been stored for more than a year.
There is, however, only a single āśrama , the teachers maintain, because the householder’s state alone is prescribed in perceptible Vedic texts. (GDh 3.1–36)
This passage contains several significant elements that are crucial both to understanding the early āśrama system and for the way the system is dealt with in later Dharmaśāstric literature. Two significant aspects of the system we have already identified are highlighted. With the words “He has a choice,” Gautama signals both personal choice in following a particular āśrama and the time when that choice is to be exercised: after a young man has completed his Vedic studentship. This is the time when he is normally expected to return home and to get married. But the āśrama system disrupts this passage by stating that the young man may choose not to get married but pursue one of the three other modes of life that do not entail family life. The second element is the lack of detail with regard to two of the āśramas : Vedic student and married householder. With regard to the former, Gautama simply says that rules for a Vedic student have already been given, namely, in the previous two chapters (GDh 1.5–2.50). Thus the rules for the student’s āśrama are the same as those followed by a temporary student following his Vedic initiation. Gautama passes over the householder in silence, clearly, because much of his treatise is devoted to the rules governing his life; he is the silent subject of most of the rules. The most detailed treatment of the rules governing āśramas pertains to the forest hermit and the wandering ascetic. It is within the context of the āśrama system, as we will see (Chapter 18 ), that the Dharmaśāstric tradition integrated material dealing with these two ascetic modes of life.
A significant aspect of Gautama’s and Baudhāyana’s expositions of the āśrama system is that both reject the theory that a person can choose any one of the āśramas and subscribe to a theology they call aikāśramya , the position that there is in reality only a single āśrama , namely, that of the householder or gṛhastha . I have already drawn attention to a competing theology asserting the centrality of the gṛhastha . This theology underpins the Dharmaśāstric project. Gautama and Baudhāyana provide different but complementary reasons why the householder’s is the only legitimate āśrama. Gautama says that it is so “because the householder’s state alone is prescribed in perceptible Vedic texts.” This argument is based on hermeneutical principles articulated in the Mīmāṃsā school of Vedic exegesis. Vedic injunctions may be found either in actually available, that is, “perceptible” Vedic texts (pratyakṣaśruti ) or in Vedic texts whose existence has to be inferred (anumitaśruti ) on the basis of other factors, such as injunctions in “texts of recollection” (smṛti ) or observed normative practice (ācāra ). The former, according to Mīmāṃsā principles, is stronger than the latter. Gautama, thus, asserts that the householder’s state is explicitly enjoined in perceptible Vedic texts, while the other āśramas are not. Baudhāyana, on the other hands, says that there is only one āśrama because no offspring is produce in the other āśramas (aprajananatvād itareṣām ; 2.11.27). The argument here has two steps: the obligation to father offspring is stated explicitly in Vedic texts, and it is only as a householder that a man can produce offspring legitimately.
The aikāśramya thesis proposed by Gautama and Baudhāyana is based on the gṛhastha theology that, as I noted in Chapter 1 , both opposed the āśrama theology and provided the theological basis for the Dharmaśāstras. Yet, both these theologies are based on the ascetic or śramaṇic vocabularies and theologies seen in the Aśokan inscriptions. The very term gṛhastha , as we have seen, is not derived from the Vedic vocabulary but from śramaṇic discourse.
The classical formulation of the āśrama system, articulated for the first time by Manu, makes the āśramas part of the rites of passage; they follow a person as he grows from adolescence to adulthood and finally to old age. Although Manu does not explicitly state that Vedic initiation is the entry into the first āśrama , he comments explicitly on the passage from this āśrama to that of the householder: “After he has learnt in the proper order the three Vedas or two of them, or at least one, without violating his chastity, he should undertake the householder’s āśrama ” (2.2). Then at 6.1, he gives the passage from the latter to the āśrama of a forest hermit: “After living this way in the householder’s āśrama according to rule, a twice-born bath-graduate (snātaka ; Chapter 8 ) should duly live in the forest, controlling his self and mastering his organs.” Manu (6.33–6.34) assigns to the final period of a man’s life the āśrama of a wandering mendicant: “After spending the third quarter of his life this way in the forest, he should cast off his attachments and wander about as an ascetic during the fourth. When a man goes forth as an ascetic after he has moved from āśrama to āśrama …he will prosper after death.” This is the most explicit and detailed statement of the classical formulation of the āśrama system in the Dharmaśāstras, even though all post-Manu authors take this model as the basis for their comments on the āśramas .
The centrality that the āśrama system assumed in later Brahmanical theology is indicated by the novel term anāśrama (with the corresponding anāśramin ), that is a state outside the āśramas . In the Vulgate version 5 of Yājñavalkya (3.241) living in such a state (anāśrame vāsaḥ ) is viewed as a minor sin. A Dharmaśāstric text cited by Śaṃkara 6 states: “A twice-born should not remain an anāśramin even for a single day.”
At the other end of the spectrum is a person who is so holy and enlightened that he is viewed as beyond all categories, including āsrama. He is referred to as atyāśramin , a person who has transcended the āśramas.
The centrality that the āśrama system occupied in the Dharmaśāstric social ideology is indicated by its presence in the descriptions of a king’s duties. Manu says that the king “stands as the surety for the dharma with respect to the four āsramas ” (7.17); and “The king was created as the protector of people belonging to all varṇas and āsramas ” (7.35). Nārada in his disquisition on legal procedure (vyavahāra ) says that it is said to have four beneficiaries because it protects the four āśramas (NSm Mā 1.12). Elsewhere he says that the king should protect all four āśramas (NSm 18.5).
From the time of Manu, that is, the second century ce , the āśrama system became a central and integral part of Brahmanical dharma , paralleling the older varṇa system and making the compound varṇāśrama a shorthand for the totality of Brahmanical dharma , or what later came to be called Hinduism.