Asceticism is at the very heart of the Dharmaśāstra project, given the centrality, as already noted, of the gṛhastha and the āśrama system within it (see Chapters 1 , 5 , and 9 ). The term ascetic is, of course, subject to varying definitions, but at its core lie the control and the discipline of an individual’s body and appetites. In this sense, as I have argued elsewhere (Olivelle 2006a ), asceticism is the most essential ingredient of culture and social living. But even when we take it in a more restricted sense, the gṛhastha and brahmacārin in the view of Dharmaśāstra clearly fall within the definition of ascetic : their lives are governed by rigorous discipline and self-denial. In this sense, the dharma of Dharmaśāstra, with the possible exception of law and royal functions, can be viewed as deeply ascetic.
Yet, given that whole chapters in this volume are devoted to those two institutions, this chapter will focus on the other two āśramas , that of the forest hermit and the wandering mendicant. It is within these two categories that the authors of Dharmaśāstras down the centuries discussed the strictly ascetic modes of life and laid down rules governing them.
The inventors of the āśrama system created a twofold classification of ascetics: the one sedentary and residing outside villages and civilized space, and the other itinerant, without fixed abode, and entering villages only to beg for food. Although this dual classification into forest hermit and wandering mendicant probably reflected the kinds of ascetics one encountered in ancient India, it also reduced in all likelihood a variety of ascetic modes of life to two broad categories.
The ascetic living a sedentary life in the forest is most commonly called by two names: vānaprastha and vaikhānasa , 1 pointing to diverse traditions of ascetics living apart from civilized society. There does not appear to be a distinction made between these two terms, however, in the Dharmaśāstras themselves. The only specific information provided is about the possible existence of a treatise (śāstra ) relating to hermits (vaikhānasaśāstra ), which is followed by vānaprasthas (BDh 2.11.14). Manu’s (MDh 6.21) statement that hermits “should abide by the Vaikhānasa doctrine” (vaikhānasamate sthitaḥ ) also points to a possible treatise. The most common term for a hermit is vānapratha , whose derivation vana + prastha is problematic; the term prastha may be derived from the verb meaning “to go forth,” which is very similar to pravrajati , or it may refer to a spot of land, perhaps a clearing, in the forest. In any case, the term clearly refers to the prescribed habitation of a hermit, namely, the forest.
Two aspects of a hermit’s life are highlighted in the Dharmaśāstras: habitat and food. Both these are divorced from society and civilization. A hermit lives in the forest and subsists on food that is not culturally mediated. Gautama tells him not to step on plowed land or enter a village, and to live on uncultivated vegetation such as roots and fruits, not eating anything grown in a village (GDh 3.26–3.33; VaDh 9.1–9.4; Olivelle 1991 ). The rejection of cultural mediation in every aspect of life defines the hermit’s asceticism. This is true not just of habitat and food, but in other areas such as clothes, which are made out of tree barks and animal skins. Matted hair, another prominent feature of his bodily appearance, is also related to being “natural,” letting hair grow without cutting or control. The chief activity singled out for comment is the performance of ascetic toil or tapas, a feature of his life that connects him to Vedic ideologies connected to bodily control and torture termed tapas and śrama (Olivelle 1993 : 9–11).
Given the anticultural focus of a hermit’s life, it is surprising and significant that he does not abandon the use of fire, even ritual fire. Āpastamba (2.21.21) says that a hermit should maintain “a single fire” (ekāgni ). Gautama (3.27), Baudhāyana (2.11.15), and Vasiṣṭha (9.10) say that he “kindles the sacred fire according to the procedure for recluses” (śrāmaṇakenāgnim ādhāya ). It is unclear what this procedure entails and how śrāmaṇaka relates to the Vaikhānasa treatise. 2 And Manu (6.4) asks him to take the sacred fires and ritual implements when he retires to the forest. The presence of ritual fire here stands in sharp contrast to its absence, repeatedly emphasized in the texts, in the case of a wandering mendicant.
The sexuality of a hermit is a problematic issue. If we follow the original formulation of the āśrama system (Chapter 5 ), a person becomes a forest hermit immediately after Vedic studentship, while he is still celibate. This is the understanding of Gautama and Baudhāyana, while Vasiṣṭha (9.5) explicitly enjoins him to observe celibacy. Yet, the picture is muddied in Āpastamba’s account. After stating initially that he goes forth while remaining chaste (2.21.19), he goes on to say that according to some there is “an orderly sequence.” The sequence consists of becoming a student, then getting married and raising a family, and finally living with his wife and children—or alone—outside the village (2.22.6–2.22.9). This comes very close to the classical formulation of the āśrama system. Another kind of sequence consists of the hermit assuming very stringent ascetic modes. Āpastamba (2.22.2–2.22.5) says, “Thereafter, he should roam about, living on roots, fruits, leaves, and grasses, and finally on what he happens to find lying about. After that he should sustain himself on water, air, and space. Among these, each subsequent pursuit is more exceptional in terms of its reward.” Vasiṣṭha (9.11–9.12) also instructs him to live at the foot of a tree, homeless and without a fire, a mode that is very much an imitation of a wandering mendicant.
The institution of forest hermit is complicated by a parallel institution where assuming the life of a hermit is advocated for an old person, especially for a king who has abdicated his throne in favor of his son, as also for a person who is sent into exile, as in the cases of the epic heroes Rāma and the Pāṇḍava brothers. To some degree these forest modes of life parallel the classical formulation of the āśrama system that depicts both ascetic lifestyles as old-age institutions. There are also idyllic depictions of forest hermitages (also called āśrama ) in epic literature and poetry, hermitages where families of hermits live in peace and harmony with forest animals. All this indicates a set of complex institutions and lifestyles that are placed within the category of hermit in the Dharmaśāstras.
At least by about the middle of the first millennium ce , however, the institution of forest hermit, in all likelihood, had become obsolete. It continues to be mentioned and described as one of the āśramas in the texts of the Dharmaśāstric tradition, well into the late medieval period. But it was a dead institution on the ground. This is revealed most clearly when it is included in the so-called kaliyugavarjya , things that are to be avoided in the current Kali age (Bhattacharya 1943 ).
The central ascetic institution within Dharmaśāstra specifically, and within Hinduism more generally, is that of the world-renouncing and wandering mendicant. He is variously referred to in our sources: pravrajita, parivrājaka, bhikṣu , and muni . Although not found frequently in the early Dharmasūtras, the most common term at least from the time of Vasiṣṭha and Manu, that is, the early centuries of the Common Era, is yati . 3 In the medieval commentaries and digests, this is the most common term, with the titles of numerous texts beginning with yatidharma .
The institution of the wandering mendicant, by whatever name it is identified, cuts across a broad spectrum of ancient Indian religious traditions. Clearly, the gifted wandering mendicants started most if not all of the ancient religions associated with asceticism, including the Buddhist, the Jaina, and the Ājīvika, as well as major traditions within what we call Hinduism. This institution was responsible for most of the innovative elements in the ancient Indian religious landscape (Dumont 1960 ). From a historical point of view, the institution can be traced back to about the middle of the first millennium bce . From a geographical perspective, we can locate it principally in northeastern India, in the region that has been called Greater Magadha (Bronkhorst 2007 ).
In broad outline, both within the Dharmaśāstras and in other traditions such as Buddhism and Jainism, the mode of life of a wandering mendicant, at least in its ideal presentation, appears clear. The central feature is his departure, the “going forth” (pravrajati ), from home. The second and equally central feature is his itinerant lifestyle without permanent abode; he is homeless. Hence, the Pāli Buddhist refrain: agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajati , “He goes forth from home into the homeless state” (Dīgha Nikāya II: 153). His itinerant lifestyle is captured in the common epithet parivrājaka, “wanderer.” Just like the forest hermit, the wanderer is also defined by his food, in his case, alms food. To obtain it, a wanderer enters a village; he is instructed to gather food like a bee (mādhūkaravṛtti ), that is, not from a single house but one morsel each from several houses, without becoming a burden on any. Hence, he is called a bhikṣu , “beggar.”
A wandering mendicant lives without any possessions, except for the bare requirements such as a begging bowl and a water pot. He is referred to as a pauper, one who owns nothing: anicaya, aparigraha (GDh 3.11; BDh 2.11.16; VaDh 10.6). Many sources say that he also carries a staff, a symbol that will be subject to much discussion and classification in medieval texts (Olivelle 1986–7). Some mendicants went naked, while others covered themselves with a cloth colored ochre, a color that has remained emblematic of the wandering mendicant throughout Indian history.
Another central feature is the absence of fire, especially ritual fire. This feature is present even in non-Brahmanical traditions, but it is elevated to become the central element of the rite of renunciation in the Dharmaśāstras. The mendicant is frequently called anagni , “fireless” (ĀpDh 2.21.10; BDh 2.18.22). The rite for becoming a homeless mendicant is given for the first time by Baudhāyana (BDh 2.17–2.18). A prominent element of this ritual process is the formal and public abandonment of the ritual fires and ritual implements used for Vedic rites. The abandonment of fire is presented as an internalization—he deposits the sacred fires in himself (ātmany agnīn samāropayate ) by breathing in the warmth and smoke of each fire. The abandonment of the ritual fires implies the abandonment of rites themselves. From now on, the ascetic lives a life free of rites; he is called anārambin (GDh 3.25). Not possessing a ritual or any other fire, a wandering mendicant, according to the Dharmaśāstras, was not cremated but buried either on land or in water (Olivelle 1995a : 176–80).
It is within the context of the ritual abandonment of ritual fires and ritual implements that we find the earliest use of the term saṃnyāsa and its verbal counterparts, a term that becomes commonplace in later texts as referring simply to the state of an ascetic. 4 The earliest use of this term is in Baudhāyana’s description of the rite of renunciation in the context of an old man. Indeed, it is specifically with reference to the discarding of ritual fire and implements and the abandonment of rites, home, family, and property that the term saṃnyāsa was initially used. Manu uses the phrase saṃnyasya sarvakarmāṇi (6.95–6.96), having abandoned all rites; Baudhāyana calls the rite of renunciation saṃnyāsavidhi (2.17.1). And the formula of renunciation, which makes a person a renouncer, consists of repeating three times: saṃnyastaṃ mayā (lit., “It has been renounced by me”; BDh 2.17.27). What he renounces is left unstated, but clearly within the ritual, the term refers specifically to the ritual fire and implements. Even Manu does not use the term to refer to a normal wandering mendicant. His saṃnyāsa refers to an old man who retires from normal household duties after conferring his authority on his son. Manu calls such a retiree vedasaṃnyāsaka (6.86). Baudhāyana also enjoins saṃnyāsa on a man who is over senenty years old (2.17.5).
There was a confusion, at least in the texts, between renunciation termed saṃnyāsa in old age by a householder and renunciation associated with the original formulation of the āśrama system that was undertaken by a young adult soon after the completion of his Vedic studies. This confluence of different ascetic practices is exemplified in Baudhāyana’s (2.17.2–2.17.6) note about who and when renunciation should be carried out: “Some say: ‘From that very state, remaining chaste, he should go forth’” (= ĀpDh 2.21.8). Alternatively, it is meant for Śālīnas and Yāyāvaras 5 who are childless. Or else, a widower may undertake it or someone who has settled his children in their respective duties. Some prescribe renunciation for people over age seventy, or for a forest hermit who has retired from ritual activities. This confluence is evident in and resolved by the classical formulation of the āśrama system, which transformed the forest hermit and wandering mendicant into institutions of old age. Retirement of an old householder parallels the renunciation undertaken by a wandering mendicant. At the end of his discourse on the householder, Manu (4.257–4.258) says:
After he has freed himself according to rule from his debts to the great seers, ancestors, and gods [see MDh 6.35], he should hand over everything to his son and live in complete equanimity. Living alone in a secluded place, he should always reflect on what is beneficial to himself; for, by reflecting alone, he attains supreme bliss.
A feature that distinguishes the wandering mendicant from other kinds of asceticism, including the forest hermit, is his intimate association with personal liberation: mokṣa or nirvāṇa . This goal is evident in the data we have from all religious traditions including Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jain. It is also connected to the revolutionary new worldview emerging probably in eastern India around the middle of the first millennium bce , a worldview connected to the ideologies of rebirth and karma. The centrality of liberation also connects the institution to the pursuit of knowledge, especially mystical knowledge associated with meditation and yoga. This is evident in the earliest Dharmasūtras. Āpastamba (2.21.13–2.21.14), for example, gives the opinion of some: “Abandoning truth and falsehood, pleasure and pain, the Vedas, this world and the next, he should seek the Self. When he gains insight (buddhe ), he attains bliss.” He rejects this by saying: “If a man attains bliss when he gains insight, moreover, he should not feel pain in this very world” (2.21.16). Vasiṣṭha (10.17) likewise cites a verse highlighting the liberated state achieved by a wandering mendicant: “Freedom from rebirth, indeed, is secure for a man who always lives in the wilderness; has brought his senses under control and put an end to all sensual pleasure; focuses his mind on contemplating the highest self; and looks upon everything dispassionately.”
It is in Manu, however, where we find the focus on mokṣa made most explicitly. Indeed, he calls the state of a wandering mendicant simply mokṣaā (1.1.114, 6.35–6.37). He is also more explicit in the instruction to the ascetic to pursue the yogic path:
He should reflect on the diverse paths humans take as a result of their evil deeds; on how they fall into hell; on the tortures they endure in the abode of Yama; on how they are separated from the ones they love and united with the ones they hate; on how they are overcome by old age and tormented by diseases; on how the inner self departs from this body, takes birth again in a womb, and migrates through tens of billions of wombs; and on how embodied beings become linked with pain as a result of pursuing what is against dharma and with imperishable happiness as a result of pursuing dharma as one’s goal. By yogic meditation, he should also reflect on the subtle nature of the highest self and on its appearance in the highest and the lowest of bodies. (MDh 6.61–6.65)
Meditation is the path to attaining Brahman:
Everything prescribed here is contingent on meditation; for no one ignorant of the highest self can reap the fruits of his rites. He should practice the soft recitation of Vedic texts relating to sacrifice, gods, and self, as also those named Vedānta—this is the refuge of the ignorant, as indeed of the learned; this is the refuge of those who seek heaven, as of those who yearn for the infinite. If a twice-born lives as a wandering ascetic following the above sequence of practices, he will cast off his sins in this world and attain the highest Brahman. (MDh 6.82–6.85)
The centrality of meditation in the life of a wandering mendicant is again taken up by Yājñavalkya, who has the longest section on this subject encompassing 151 verses (3.56–3.206). This section also contains a unique description of the human anatomy with the implication that the ascetic should meditate on these separate sections of the human body and on their transient nature. There is also a discussion of music and singing, which are seen as helping the mystical effort. One small passage deals with the actual posture in yogic meditation:
Placing his feet facing upward on his thighs, putting his right hand facing upward on his left, lifting up his face somewhat, keeping himself erect with his chest, keeping his eyes closed, abiding in the attribute of goodness, keeping the upper teeth and lower teeth from touching each other, keeping his tongue motionless against the palate, keeping his mouth closed, keeping himself motionless, keeping all his organs under restraint, and sitting on a seat that is neither too low nor too high, he should control his breath two or three times. Then, he should contemplate that lord who abides in his heart like a lamp. And the wise man should concentrate on the self abiding there, as he performs mental concentration. Becoming invisible, memory, beauty, sight, hearing, knowledge, leaving one’s own body and entering another’s body, and the creation of things at will—these, however, are the characteristics of yogic accomplishment. Once yogic accomplishment has been achieved, abandoning the body, he becomes fit for immortality. (YDh 3.199–3.204)
One of the principal features of a wandering mendicant’s life is celibacy. The term used is brahmacarya , which is also the term for the life of a Vedic student. It is probably from the fact that a student was expected to refrain from sexual activity that the term developed its secondary meaning of celibacy, and this meaning is found also in Buddhist texts that refer to the life of a Buddhist monk as brahmacarya. Obviously, a married householder cannot adhere to brahmacarya ; indeed, he is required to engage in sex with his wife during the wife’s fertile season (ṛtu ), soon after her menstrual period. Yet, given the centrality of the wandering ascetic within Brahmanical religion, we find efforts in the Dharmaśāstras to present the householder as a true ascetic, devoted especially to brahmacarya. We have already seen in Chapter 5 that the gṛhastha is not simply a married man but also a man devoted to holiness just like an ascetic. Manu (3.50) redefines “true” celibacy: when a householder follows strictly the rules of sexual intercourse with his wife, he can be viewed as truly a celibate: “Regardless of the āśrama in which a man lives, if he avoids women during the forbidden nights and during the other eight nights, he becomes a true celibate (brahmacārin )” (MDh 3.46–3.47).
An issue related to ascetic lifestyles within the Brahmanical tradition concerns gender and varṇa . There is plenty of evidence that women and men belonging to lower social classes became ascetics in ancient India. The issue here is whether legally/theologically they were permitted to do so.
According to the āśrama system, Vedic initiation and studentship constituted the gateway into the āśramas and, therefore, into ascetic modes of life. Whether women were permitted to undergo Vedic initiation is not entirely clear (see Olivelle 1993 : 184–90), but at least in the mainstream Dharmaśāstric tradition, they were barred, as were Śūdras and other lower-class men. Yet, we have voices even during the medieval period that acknowledge the ability of women to assume ascetic lifestyles. The twelfth-century commentator Vijñāneśvara (on YDh 3.58) interprets the expression ekārāma (delighting in solitude) to mean that a renouncer should not have female renouncers or other women as companions. In this context, he cites a passage from Baudhāyana’s Dharmasūtra : “Some (permit renunciation) also for women” (strīṇāṃ caike ), a passage not found in the extant text. Given that this comment is made within the context of the fourth āśrama, it may well be that Vijñāneśvara recognized female renunciation as an āśrama .
With regard to social class or varṇa , we do not find explicit statement in the Dharmaśāstras regarding the connection of varṇa and āśrama or more specifically the ascetic institutions. Given that Vedic initiation is open to all three upper varṇas , it is reasonable to assume that all the āśramas are open to them. The only dissenting voice comes from the Vaikhānasa Dharmasūtra , a text that stands somewhat apart from the mainstream Dharmaśāstric tradition. In the opening section (1.1), it says, “(All) four āśramas are meant for a Brāhmaṇa, the first three for a Kṣatriya, and just two for a Vaiśya.” This view is expressed even more clearly in the Purāṇas (Olivelle 1993 : 192), with the addition that only the state of a householder is legitimate for a Śūdra.
The view that asceticism was forbidden to Śūdras is found in numerous Brahmanical texts and underlies the episode of the Rāmāyaṇa (7.67.2–7.67.4), where Rāma beheads a Śūdra who is practicing asceticism. In commenting on a statement in the Mahābhārata (15.33.31–15.33.32) that the body of Vidura, a Śūdra, should not be cremated because he was a renouncer, two commentators take diametrically opposite positions. Medhātithi (on MDh 6.97) says that a Śūdra does not actually become a renouncer but obtain its fruits by their lifelong service to twice-born people while living as a householder. Nīlakaṇṭha, the seventeenth-century polymath, however, commenting on this Mahābhārata passage is forthright: “This shows that the renouncer’s dharma is open even to those who are born from a Śūdra womb.”
As already noted, the chief textual tradition within Brahmanism to codify rules relating to asceticism was Dharmaśāstra. In the main Dharmaśāstras themselves, with the possible exception of Yājñavalkya’s, asceticism occupies a minor role; the focus is on the householder. It is in the medieval period that entire texts devoted to asceticism, specifically to the life of a wandering mendicant, came to be written. Some, like the Mokṣakāṇḍa of Lakṣmīdhara’s Kṛtyakalpataru (twelfth century ce ), are parts of larger multivolume legal digests or Nibandhas. But most are monographs devoted to the topic of renunciation and the rules governing the life and death of a wandering mendicant. The former deal with the rite of renunciation and their titles generally begin with saṃnyāsa (e.g., Saṃnyāsapaddhati; see Olivelle 1986 ). Kane (I: 1139–40) lists twenty-eight such texts. The latter kind of texts begin their titles with yati (Yatidharmasamuccaya ; Olivelle 1995a ), and Kane (I: 1091–2) lists thirty-five such texts. Almost all of these exist only in manuscript form; very few have been edited or printed.
It is a truism to say that asceticism is central within the various religious traditions of India including the Hindu. The world-renouncing mendicant stands at the center of most Hindu sects and philosophical traditions. Yet within the Dharmaśāstric tradition, he occupies, with some notable exceptions, somewhat of a marginal position. The married householder raising a family, devoted to virtue, and engaging in ritual activities is the homo religious . The tension between celibacy and marriage, between the search for personal liberation and the obligation to beget offspring—what has been called the inner conflict of the tradition (Heesterman 1985 )—continued well into modern times. A vice-president of India asked the question: “Who is better—the householder or the sanyasi?” The answer for him was clear: “Of course, the householder.” An ascetic is simply a parasite on society (Olivelle 1993 : 237).