CHAPTER 51

MARKANDEYA COUNSELS THE PANDAVAS

Social Unrest and Massive Social Change

Manu Vaivasvata had approved bringing the rural commonalty (bhumi, manushyas) under the scheme of four classes but most of the villagers were poor and ignorant agricultural workers (Shudras) who did not have personal property. The intelligentsia had either migrated to the city or been stationed in the social periphery and in the forests. Only a few agriculturists could become owners of land. Traders had no place in the village and they too could not amass wealth.

Markandeya noticed that even acquisition of a little wealth led the rich to behave in an arrogant way. Those with whom goods were entrusted for safe keeping betrayed that trust and tried to attach the goods and shamelessly deny having received them. Varnasrama dharma failed to curb greed and promote honesty and truth.

The earlier puritanical laws based on truth (satya) required the state to protect the property of the subjects, whether earned or inherited. The new scheme while introducing the concept of contractual state gave protection only to the right to pursue ones vocation which was approved by it and left a vast area of administration in a nebulous state for it did not favour the emergence of powerful states. The new state had little hold on the rich traders. It also neglected the weak people of the subaltern as they had no wealth and paid no taxes. The commoners (manushyas) were eased out of the towns and wild animals and birds took over the areas assigned to the visitors from the rural areas.

Social Decline

Markandeya was harsh on the practice of child marriage that made the boys look old and weak even at the age of sixteen and the married women resort to adultery seeking sex with their servants and even submitting to sodomy. He told Yudhishtira that wives of warriors tended to seek sex with commoners even while their husbands were alive. When the kali epoch of a thousand years was about to end there would be drought for several years killing many especially the weaker sections of the society and animals, Markandeya warned Yudhishtira addressing him as the head of the agrarian commonalty.

Revolt of the subaltern and of the proletariat

He predicted that the level of the water in the seas might go down on account of the eruption of the volcanoes under them destroying the aquatic plants. The volcanic lava (agni) might flow into the already dry lands surging up from the bottom (patala) of the earth. Markandeya implied that the people of the subaltern might rise up in revolt against the three sectors of the ruling elite, nobles (devas), feudal lords (asuras) and plutocrats (yakshas). The uprising would destroy the socio-economic world of technocrats (nagaloka) and the acquisitions and property of the people of the plains (bhumi, manushyas) and then all the resources of the mines and the subaltern working there (patalaloka). The massive revolt of the incensed industrial proletariat might ultimately destroy the latter and their means of livelihood, Markandeya, an interpreter of trends in civilisation predicted.

Besides agricultural and industrial resources and the workers in these fields, the upper strata of the society comprising the aristocrats (devas), feudal lords (asuras), technocrats (uragas), plutocrats (yakshas) and their guards (rakshasas) and the free intelligentsia-cum-warriors (gandharvas) too would be affected severely and the entire integrated social polity and its economy would be affected by this widespread uprising, he warned. Prolonged drought would be followed by heavy rains and flooding of the agricultural lands (bhumi).

Generous aid to overcome the massive revolt

Markandeya noticed that according to the principles of the socio-political constitution expounded by Brahmadeva, the non-violent reaction of the elite lasting twelve years and pouring generous aid to the lower ranks of the society would check the severity of the massive revolt of the industrial proletariat and the subaltern against the existing socio-economic order. As the seas once again rose up and its waters crossed the shores and mountains and earth were torn and the clouds became thin, the economy and culture of the commonalty would be restored to previous levels, he said.

Emergence of an undifferentiated society

The emergence of an undifferentiated large commonalty with settled communities (sthavara), mobile groups (jangama), cadres (ganas) of nobles (devas) and feudal lords (asuras) losing their identity and frontier society (yakshas, rakshas) and commoners (manushyas) ceasing to be distinct from one another in their orientations and both wild animals and gentle plants vanishing and the dispersed people of the open space (akasa) too ceasing to remain so, made Markandeya anxious. It was not a healthy reorganisation of the society based on egalitarianism though the process leading to it was given momentum by the uprising of the subaltern and the revolt of the proletariat. [The biography of Markandeya was being narrated to Janamejaya by Vaishampayana soon after the revolt of the industrial workers, sarpas.]

Markandeya spokesman of a new generation

Markandeya recounting his early life said that when saddened by the possibility of an undifferentiated mass society emerging to only end the lives of all the beings (pranis) at the bare existence level he happened to see an innocent infant clinging to the branch of a large tree left there by the deluge. The chronicler told Yudhishtira (Janamejaya) that Markandeya, a Bhrgu, looked like a young boy (had got into the body of that divine infant) and was the spokesman of a new generation who had developed dislike for a long life and for the life of a commoner. The identification with the new and innocent generation enabled Markandeya to observe the integrated social polity of towns, forests and plains, the three social worlds, the rich aristocracy based in the towns, the industrial workers of the forest society and the agriculturists of the rural areas.

The new integrated society and expanded core society

Markandeya saw the different rivers and the seas with aquatic animals and coral reefs when he was yet a young boy. He also saw the sober intelligentsia of the forest society and the cadres of administrators of the agro-pastoral core society represented by Soma (Chandra) and Aditya (Surya) re-emerging. He also saw the open space (akasa) whose dispersed population were equal to and reflected the culture of both the societies. Markandeya saw the expanded core society, which had plains (bhumi), and islands and trees and mountains also.

He noticed that the Brahmans of the new commonalty (bhumi) worshipped the chieftains of the forest (devatas, who were marginally lower than the liberal nobles, devas). He saw that the administrators (Kshatriyas) were trying to please all the classes (varnas) through their deeds. In the new commonalty, for the Vaisyas agriculture was the main vocation. The sage seems to withdraw them from the fields of pasture and trade. The Shudras were required to attend on the three classes. Markandeya would not treat them as workers.

Emergence of an integrated society maintaining diversity

The imagery of the sage seeing through the eyes of the innocent boy took Markandeya around all the mountains and forests and plains to notice the lives of their denizens. Addressing Yudhishtira as a prominent free man (narasreshta), as the chief of the agrarian tracts (bhumi pati) and the noble (deva) who took care of the interests of the commoners (manushyas) who were subordinate to the codes of their clans and communities Markandeya explained what he saw after the old order was restored. He had been restored his boyhood days.

He saw Indra and all the cadres of nobles (devas), Saddhyas, Rudras, Vasus, Asvinidevas and Adityas and also the scholars who lived in secrecy (guhyakas), the elders (pitrs who lived in their forest abodes), the industrial workers (sarpas), technocrats (nagas), the good messengers dressed in leaves and feathers (suparnas), gandharvas and apsarases (who belonged to the free intelligentsia), sages (rshis), plutocrats (yakshas), intransigent sectors of feudal elements and greedy plutocrats (daityas and danavas), controllers of the macro-economy (nagas) and workers of the micro-economy (simmikas).

He also saw the enemies of the nobles (devas). The settled communities (sthavara) and the mobile individuals and groups (jangama) which he had seen earlier as a man, he saw again as a young boy. The allegory of the sage entering the body of young Vishnu with the Srivatsa mark needs to be interpreted in a rational manner. Markandeya was made to realise that an integrated social order was the best alternative to social unrest.

Traits and Roles of Narayana

Markandeya then described to the Pandavas his view of the sage, Narayana. Even the nobles did not have a realistic picture of the status, role and power of Narayana who was later visualised as Vishnu, one of the trinity, Siva and Brahma being the other two. Because Markandeya was devoted to his father he was able to meet that sage personally. Narayana resided in the midst of waters (nara). He created and destroyed all living beings. Markandeya would attribute to him the role of recognising the rights of all the people (pranis) at the lower rungs of the society and also withdrawing that recognition and segregation at the appropriate time when they would be admitted to higher ranks by their own merit. He played the roles of Vishnu (an Aditya), the protector, and Brahma the head of the judiciary.

Narayana associated himself with the roles of Indra who headed the aristocrats (devas) of the core society and also of Kubera who headed the plutocrats (yakshas) of the frontier society. In his view, the magistrate designated as Yama, ensured the welfare of the commoners (manushyas) who had renounced their active lives. But Narayana did not dissociate himself from the Rudra school of thought of the forests one of whose members Siva was. Narayana approved the role of Soma, the head of the intelligentsia of the forest.

Markandeya was presenting the stand that the sages who composed the Vedic hymns, took regarding the roles of these officials of the integrated society. He also noticed that Narayana approved the scheme of social organisation presented by Kashyapa who had identified eight large sectors of that inclusive society and who would keep only the intransigent among the feudal lords out of it. Kashyapa, an Atharvan, headed the council of seven sages during the tenure of Manu Vaivasvata. Obviously, Markandeya had great regard for him.

Markandeya asserted that the sage, Narayana, was for the creation of distinct social worlds (lokas) and for the protection of their separate identities. He did not uphold the concept, Rudra as god of destruction. Narayana extolled the practice of Yajna, sacrifice. Among the Vedic officials, he would identify Agni, with the face of a man, and Soma and Surya with his eyes, Akasa with his head, Digpalas, the officers in charges of the regions in the different directions with his ears, Apa with sweat. He would also opt to identify the open space, akasa, with the body of that person and Vayu with his mind, which could move (think of objects) everywhere but which was kept steady.

Narayana, the sage, was claimed to have performed hundreds of yajnas on behalf of the nobles (devas) offering the prescribed fees (dakshina). At the same time the Vedic scholars worshipped him through yajnas. So too the kings who were rich and senior sreshta kshatriyas and longed for a place among the nobles and the rich Vaisyas who wanted to be elevated to the aristocracy (svarga) but belonged to the commonalty of the plains (bhumi, manushyas) performed sacrifices (yajnas) in his honour.

The chronicler then drew attention to the pictures of Sesha (the representative of the miners), keeping up the earth and Varaha raising it from the sea. He also drew attention to the primordial (submarine volcano) mare (vadaba) sprouting fire (agni) from her mouth and vaporising the waters and Narayana turning the steam into water (apa) for the welfare of all.

The Purusha Imagery and Narayana

The chronicler then introduces the imagery by which Narayana the sage and social leader (Purusha) by his prowess acquired the services of the four classes (varnas), Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Shudras. The imagery of Brahmans being the face of Purusha, Kshatriyas his two arms, Vaisyas his two thighs and Shudras his two legs is referred to here. Narayana called for the acceptance of all the four Vedas. The chronicler of the later times introduces the claim that they were authored by Purusha, the God, and were meant to extol Him and seek His favour.

Rshi Narayana told Markandeya that those who were engaged in noble efforts and were calm and restrained in mind and longed for liberation (moksha) and were free from lust, rage and hatred and were not after fame and were free from sins and were gentle and serene (sattva) and were not egotistic and were always aware of the directions given by the science of the essential individual or soul (adhyatma) and were scholars (brahmans) always contemplated on and worshipped him.

Narayana on the society going through revolution

Narayana was identified with the Vedic officials, Agni, Yama, Surya and Vayu, who were on the scene during the major social revolution (pralaya). Agni represented the agro-pastoral commonalty and its intelligentsia and the civil judiciary and Surya the administrators and the warriors. Yama the magistrate ensured that the prohibitory orders were not violated and Vayu represented the diffused population of the open space. Narayana approved the roles those officials were performing when the people of the subaltern rose against the ruling elite. These officials were not connected with the ruling elite, aristocrats (devas), feudal lords (asuras) and plutocrats (yakshas) against whom the deprived sections could have had grouse.

Narayana asked Markandeya to realise that the social order that the latter perceived was created by him to enable the accomplishment of the objectives (karya) that the nobles (devas) were engaged in. The rules pertaining to truth (satya), generosity (dana), severe meditation (tapas) and non-violence (ahimsa) were prescribed under his directions. Narayana had prescribed severe restrictions on the movements of the intellectuals of the larger social body without banning their right to move about in all its sectors for carrying out their mission.

While recommending that they should study the Vedas and have a calm mind and restrain their rage he permitted them to resort to any of the different types of sacrifice (yajna). In other words he permitted the practices of the different sectors of the priests (Brahmans). The chronicler held that there were many ways of meeting the objectives of sacrifices.

Narayana told Markandeya that commoners (manushyas) who were sinners and were greedy and who had bad traits and were unfit and were fools could not attain the highest status that the virtuous could. That status (pada) should be considered to yield the greatest benefits. The chronicler then puts in Narayanas mouth the famous words of Krshna in the Bhagavad-Gita that whenever dharma was on the decline and adharma was on the rise he would make himself available (incarnate himself) for setting things right. He would be born in the houses of those who had done noble deeds whenever the cruel feudal lords (daityas) and militants (rakshasas) who could not be killed by the nobles (devas) appeared in the social world of commoners. He would enter the social bodies of commoners and control everything.

The chronicler said that by his ability to create illusion (maya), the sage, Narayana created the cadres of nobles (devas), commoners (manushyas), free intelligentsia (gandharvas) and mobile technocrats (uragas) and rebel militants of the social periphery (rakshasas), settled communities (sthavara) as well as mobile individuals (jangama) and also dissolved these cadres.

The chronicler explained to Yudhishtira that Narayana who was a sage (rshi) associated with the nobility (devas) entered a social body (sarira) of commoners (manushyas) in order to define the ambit of dharma and ensure that all stayed within the bounds of dharma. And when on deliberation he felt that the time came for re-entering it had come for doing so again, he did so or created a body through which he could work. Markandeya, the chronicler, describes the four epochs, krta, treta, dvapara and kali as being characterised by the colours, white, yellow, blue and black respectively. [Some relate the four to white, red, yellow and black respectively.]

Narayana claimed that during the fourth epoch, kali, three fourths of the society would be under the influence of adharma. By the end of that epoch he would himself call for the removal of the distinctions among the three social worlds (nobility, commonalty and frontier society, divam, prthvi and antariksham) and of the distinctions among the settled communities (sthavara) and the groups and individuals who were not settled communities (jangama) and could mix with any of these organised social worlds (lokas). Narayana claimed that he followed the ways of life of all the three cadres, nobles (devas), sages (rshis) and the retired elders (pitrs). [At that stage, the retired feudal lords, asuras, were respected as pitrs, even as those in the vanaprastha stage were.]

The chronicler extolled him as the soul (atma) of the social world of commoners and also as one who provided happiness to all the three social worlds. His ideal social leader was invincible and could go to any place and had no end (anta). He was the director of all the state organs (indriyas) and resembled Trivikrama who measured the cosmos with his huge feet (and humbled Bali and Usanas).

Narayana told Markandeya, the scholar and jurist (Brahman), that he was directing the wheel (chakra) of the destroyer (kala) by himself. This wheel was invisible and involved the destruction of all beings (pranis, especially those at the bare subsistence level) and functioned during all times (kala). He told the ascetic that by resorting to illusion (maya) he had secured a place among all those living beings (pranis) but none had identified who he was. [Krshna too makes this claim.]

He had his devotees in all the social worlds and they worshipped him in different ways. Narayana encouraged him with the declaration that all his sufferings would lead to his happiness and welfare. The immovable (sthavara) and mobile (jangama) objects (groups and individuals) that he saw in the loka, world of forest society were said to be the social body (sarira) in which Narayana was located. Brahma (the head of the constitution body) who brought into existence the different social worlds occupied half of Narayanas body. Narayana looked after the groups other than these.

Narayana's role in weathering reversal of social roles

The infant whom Markandeya came across when there was a huge deluge introduced himself as Narayana who was awake and active while Brahma was asleep, that is, was protecting all the worlds that had lost their identities before they were brought under a new scheme of social organisation. Narayana told Markandeya, a Brahmarshi (a sage who knew the socio-political constitution) that playing the part of Brahma, he had presented him a picture of the social world that would come into existence after the social order that had distinctions between organised and settled groups (sthavara) and mobile individuals (jangama) had been dissolved under the impact of upsurge (pralaya) of the subaltern resulting in reversal of roles and powers among the different classes, high and low.

Narayana told him that though the nobles (devas) and the feudal lords (asuras) (the two sectors of the ruling elite of the core society) were unable to recognise the true form of the former, he had made the latter identify him as the protector of all the distinct social worlds (lokas) that were insulated against the effects of social change and such reversal of roles while the undifferentiated mass society in upsurge that Markandeya saw outside frightened him.

Resurrection of the old social order after social revolution

Rshi Narayana told him that when Brahma, the head of the constitution bench, awoke from his stupor caused by the upsurge and reversal of social statuses and roles, Narayana would with the latter bring back into existence the populace of the open space (akasa), the influential guides (tejas), the peoples of the moors (vayu) and of the littoral regions (apa) and the remaining settled communities (sthavara) and mobile populations (jangama) who had escaped extermination in the deluge, the social revolution for a classless mass society. Markandeya told Yudhishtira that the sage, Narayana, disappeared after assuring him resurrection of the old social order as the massive social revolution through upsurge of the subaltern (pralaya) subsided.

Krshna as leader of the uprising

Markandeya was no longer upset about the threat to social order by the impending upsurge. He was able to visualise the formation at the end of the epoch of upsurge of the subaltern and the masses, of an expanded and inclusive society whose subjects (prajas) would be marked by diversity. He claimed that Krshna (Govinda) who was a kinsman of the Pandavas was the person who led the uprising of the population (jana) who were denied their basic rights as the natives of their region. Krshna who was born among the Vrshnis was Hari, the Janardana, who led the upsurge of the subaltern and the social periphery. He directed the Pandavas to seek Krshnas protection.

As has been pointed out earlier, it is necessary to distinguish between the sage, Narayana, and the general, an Aditya, and protector, Vishnu, and between Vishnu, an Aditya, and Krshna who was born among the Vrshnis who were Vasus. All the three are to be distinguished from Hari, a noble who belonged to the dark social periphery to which the deprived sections of the population were consigned. As Govinda, Krshna was the protector of the pastoral people and their cattle. As Janardana, he was a leader of the native people of Janasthana, who were protesting against the authoritarian and arbitrary ways of its feudal lord, Bali.

CHAPTER 52

MARKANDEYA COUNSELS THE PANDAVAS

The pre-varna Vedic social order

Markandeya, the chronicler seems to take the stand that before the scheme of four classes (varnas) and four stages of life (asramas) came into force there was a long period when the scheme of three social worlds (lokas) was in force. Besides the three social worlds whose settled communities and elite cadres had developed distinct orientations, there was a class of the subaltern (pranis) whose ranks were filled in by the fallen elements (patitas, narakas). They had originally belonged to the above communities. There were also discrete individuals (bhutas) who had originally belonged to these communities but had been expelled for non-conformity with their socio-economic codes.

Besides these there was a vast class of free intelligentsia and independent warriors (gandharvas) who had not accepted the orientations referred to above. There was also a vast population of the open space (akasa) that was not covered by the concepts of social worlds (lokas) and social universes (jagats). How this social order came into existence and how it underwent a major upheaval had been described by Markandeya. Yudhishtira was aware that the fourth epoch, kali, would soon come into existence, after the period of decline (kshaya) of the third epoch, dvapara.

He wanted to know from Markandeya what would be in plenty when the social laws (dharmas) were in disarray. He wanted to have a picture of the ways of life of the commoners (manushyas) at the end of the fourth epoch, kali. He also wanted to know after crossing which bounds of time, the glorious epoch of constructive activities (krtayuga) would be born again. Markandeya had been dealing with the three thousand years that preceded his conversation with Yudhishtira.

The epochs that Markandeya was acquainted with

It had witnessed a thousand years of formative period marked by laws based on nature, Rta, when men were free to act according to their aptitudes. But there was a struggle for survival and only the fittest succeeded in surviving. As the first laws called adidharma,failed to protect the lives of the innocent and the weak, the laws based on sanctity of truth (satya) and non-violence (ahimsa) began to prevail and the principle, might is right was replaced by the principle right is might.

Markandeya was aware of the movements of this epoch and the contributions of the sages of that period and the features of its social polity. He was also aware of the third epoch when the organised sector of the society could not prevent the decline of those laws and the laws based on dharma had not yet secured hold in several areas of the vast society. Consensus and maintenance of diversity of orientations could not succeed in checking the upsurge of the subaltern flowing into the commonalty and other lower rungs of the society.

Four sectors sliding away from dharma

Markandeya offered to tell Yudhishtira and others what he had seen and heard and experienced in the past. What he said about the future ahead of them was based on the method of extrapolation of the past events and the then current trends. Visualising dharma as a bull, he said that in the first epoch, krta, the evil traits like deception and greed were absent. It stood on all its four legs. The commoners (manushyas) followed all its rules. But in the next epoch, treta, it lost that perfection (the bull lost one of its four legs). During the third epoch, dvapara, it was a mixture of adharma and dharma (the bull of dharma had only two legs). Markandeya did not mention what the four legs were and which ones ceased to be emphasized during the second and third epochs.

When the epoch of tamas or kali made its appearance, adharma would have become more influential with the bull of dharma losing three of its four feet to adharma. Only the commonalty (manushyas) would stay within the framework of dharma. [Did Markandeya imply that the fourth epoch had set in during the tenure of Manu Tamasa, a contemporary of Dasaratha?] Markandeya seems to imply that if during the first epoch, the ruling elite, the intelligentsia, the captains of the economy and the commoners honoured the rules of dharma, the rich soon slid into improper means of acquiring wealth. Then the ruling elite too succumbed to the lure of power and ceased to honour the principles of justice, dharma, leaving only the commoners and the sober intelligentsia to abide by them. Markandeya feared that the intelligentsia too was fast losing faith in dharma.

Markandeya told the Pandava that (manushyas). He did not consider that the introduction of the scheme of four classes, Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Shudras, would by itself protect dharma. The members of four classes in an attempt to bring under its net all the social worlds (lokas) that existed since the times before the new scheme was envisaged would resort to deception and follow distorted codes of dharma, he feared.

Proud commoners under the garb of panditas (experts in different fields of study and stationed mainly in their forest centres) would be compressing the laws based on truth (satya). As those laws lost importance these experts too would lose their importance and would have influence only for a short duration. As they tended to die early (though as panditas they had expertise in health and medicine) they would not be able to acquire more skills. The unskilled lacking precise knowledge would fall victim to greed.

Markandeya warned that the commoners would become covetous and ignorant and hedonistic. They would have strong dislikes for others and be killing one another. The three classes, Brahmans, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas would lose their separate identities through admixture and giving up strenuous endeavour (tapas) and truth (satya) would become equal to workers (Shudras). Communities of lower ranks would rise to become communities of the middle class and those of the middle class would slide to lower levels. Markandeya notes that the upper classes would successfully guard their status and prevent those of lower ranks from rising up in the social or economic ladder. What Markandeya is reported to have said has to be taken seriously and not passed over as a trite picture of commonplace reality put in his mouth by later annotators.

Radical social change would disturb only the stratification within the commonalty but would not affect the entrenched rich ruling nobility. He then presented a grim picture of the social decline that had set in, leading to exploitation of the weak by the mighty with scant regard whether the exploited was ones wife or sons or parents or kinsmen. Several aspects of decline like following alien religions pointed out in this account are later interpolations. But the general tenor was failure to follow good practices would result in social and economic chaos.

Markandeya envisaged that the kings would resort to deception and sinful activities and harass the people and collect (oppressive) taxes. The very system of collecting taxes was oppressive regardless of the amount of taxes collected. By the end of that epoch the Kshatriyas would kill one another and fools and pretenders to expertise in knowledge would be thorns in the body politic of the social world (loka) of commonalty.

By the end of the kali epoch kings would not be protecting their subjects (prajas) and would be seen to be greedy and arrogant and keen on penalising (exercising their powers under danda) others. They would mercilessly carry away the wives and property of the pious and enjoy them while the pious wept. The practice of gifting and marrying virgins would become obsolete. Girls would seek spouses by themselves. The practice of monogamy would no longer be honoured. Wives would not serve or obey their husbands. By the end of that epoch none would trust others.

As the three higher classes declined, there would be only one community in the social world (loka) of commoners. As pointed out earlier most of this account has been interpolated later. The annotators have introduced notes indicating condemnation of the workers (Shudras), women, aliens and greedy kings who worked against social norms and the long-cherished social and cultural values.

The new four classes: Devas, Kshatriya, Brahmans, Vaisyas

Markandeya told Yudhishtira that when the fourth epoch would come to an end, all the social laws, dharmas of varnas and asramas would get mixed up, a new social world (loka) with four classes and with the Brahmans at the top would in due course emerge. The nobles (devas) would favour that social world of integrated commonalty flourishing once again, Markandeya felt.

In other words, there would be no attempt to coerce the nobility to abandon its identity and merge in the three higher classes. The administrators-cum-warriors (Kshatriyas), the integrated and sober intelligentsia (Brahmans) and the bourgeoisie (Vaisyas) represented by Aditya (Surya), Soma (Chandra) and Brhaspati respectively would come together marking the beginning of a new age of constructive activities, Krtayuga, when there would be peace and prosperity.

Vishnuyasas as Kalki

Markandeya pronounced that Vishnuyasas born in a Brahman family of a village called Sambala would appear as Kalki. {Or was Kalki the son of Vishnuyasas?) He would be a great intellectual and warrior and known for his good conduct and as one who sought the welfare of his subjects (prajas). He would become a conqueror (Dharmavijayi) who followed the rules prescribed by the dharmasastras and a chakravarti (head of a confederation of states). He would retrieve the social world of commonalty from its confusion over values to be cherished. He would bring the decline of the fourth epoch to a stop and create an epoch of dharma. He would with other Brahmans (jurists and scholars) destroy totally all the groups of aliens (mlecchas), Markandeya said. If Markandeya were to be followed Kalki appeared on the scene a thousand years after the conversation between the former and Yudhishtira.

The new social order

Markandeya predicted that Kalki would destroy the thieves and in the asvamedha yajna to mark the sanctification of his conquests and ventures he would gift the agro-pastoral plains (bhumi, manushyas) to the scholars and jurists (Brahmans), would place them under the jurisdiction of the judiciary rather than under the executive (Kshatriyas) as the ultimate sovereign authority. After re-instituting the bounds of powers (maryada) of the social world (loka) of commonalty as prescribed by the socio-political constitution (Brahma), he would spend his age in noble activities and become famous.

The commoners residing in the plains would emulate his conduct. After the thieves were destroyed by helping the judiciary (Brahmans) to use its powers prosperity would be restored, Markandeya opined. He did not expect the Brahmans to displace the Kshatriyas as the executive or as soldiers. In other words, Kalki was not envisaged to be a second Parasurama.

Kalki occupied the high position of counsellor and jurist (Brahmana) and placed on a strong pedestal the rights and duties of the jurists (Brahmans) and the executive (Kshatriyas) in the countries that he conquered. Going round those countries accompanied by senior Brahman adherents he killed those who caused hardships to others. The chronicler presented him as a destroyer of uncivilised aliens (mlecchas) who had occupied many areas of the country. That would mark the end of adharma and the rise of dharma.

With the return of the Krtayuga the peoples (jana, the sons of the soil) would follow their duties and vocations (karma) as in the past. It would be an era when the countries would be rebuilt with gardens, rest-houses, lakes and flower-ponds, houses and temples and different practices of rites (yaga karma) would come into force. Markandeya seems to have kept in mind that it would not be a replica of the earlier krtayuga.

In the new order, the Brahmans would adhere to the socio-cultural laws (dharma) and the ascetics would be engaged in strenuous endeavour (tapas) to know the unknown and the resorts (asramas) would be free from the presence and influence of the heretics (pashandas) while the native people (jana) would strictly abide by the laws based on truth (satya).

Markandeya noted that all the living beings (pranis) born in the subaltern would have been declared that they did not carry the stain and burden of the sins committed by their parents and elders. None would be treated as a born sinner. Krtayuga was characterised by the laws based on the principles of nature, Rta. Markandeya suggested that all types of persons would be born to all the people irrespective of the social climate in which they were brought up. [All types of crops would be produced in all seasons.] The commoners would be intent on generosity, upholding the pledges of austerity they had taken following the rules of prescriptions.

The practice of yajnas had not yet come into force during the first epoch, krtayuga. Only the Brahmans were engaged in repeatedly chanting the holy formulae (like gayatri). In the second krtayuga, though the society would have four classes, Devas, Kshatriyas, Brahmans and Vaisyas, yajna, voluntary sacrifice to maintain the non-economic sectors including the intelligentsia, the army and the executive, would not be in vogue. Such chanting was deemed to be a yajna, sacrifice of ones own life offered to the Invisible Ultimate. The Brahmans would be attached to measures prescribed by the liberal and just laws, dharma and would be happy. It was implied that they would not long for wealth (artha) or sex (kama) or liberation (moksha). The concept of four pursuits (purusharthas) would yield place to a single pursuit, that of dharma.

Vocations and duties of the new classes

Markandeya expected that the kings would administer the agro-pastoral plains (bhumi) of the commonalty on the basis of the principles enunciated by the code of dharma. The historian was not in favour of arthasastra and dandaniti. He also visualised a major change in the vocations assigned to the different classes in the new krtayuga. Only those engaged in trade would be known as Vaisyas. The vocations of agriculture, industry and pasture would no longer be assigned to them. Kshatriyas would be interested in protecting the people and their property. They would not be entrusted with the task of administration (paripalana).

The Brahmans would be free to follow any of the six vocations, officiating as priests at sacrifices (yajnas), teaching (Vedas, in particular), agriculture, breeding of cows, administration and judiciary. It is not sound to treat seeking alms to earn ones livelihood as a vocation prescribed for Brahmans. The Shudras would be attending on these three classes. This arrangement was made permanent (sasvata) for the three epochs, krta, treta and dvapara. Markandeya had pointed out how this arrangement was upset during the fourth epoch. He implied that all those engaged in agriculture and rearing cattle and in administration and judiciary shared the traits expected of Brahmans, namely freedom of thought, contentment, uprightness and absence of lust.

Markandeya's view that Kalki who reintroduced the scheme of four classes as it was in vogue during the first three epochs needs deep analysis. Mahadeva constitution kept the Brahmans away from wealth and from the commonalty (prthvi, manushyas) and the nobles (devas), from the army and administration (kshatriyas). If only the traders were to be included in the mercantile class of Vaisyas and nothing beyond protection of life and property was to be expected of Kshatriyas, all other activities had to be entrusted to the educated class of Brahmans. They are not to be described as sacerdotal class. Similarly the Shudras are not to be treated as servile class. That several duties and vocations had devolved on the educated class of Brahmans has not been taken note of by modern sociologists.

Markandeya like most other sages who were on the scene during the last decades of the long Vedic era could only surmise what the traits of the society of the pre-Vedic and early Vedic eras would have been. The Vedic hymns available gave them a better picture of the immediately preceding millennia which indicated the replacement of the laws based on nature by the puritanical laws based on truth and the intense struggle between the liberal aristocrats and the authoritarian feudal lords and the compromise between the aristocrats and the plutocrats and the acceptance by both the societies, agrarian core society and industrial frontier society of common socio-cultural and politico-economic codes, dharmasastra and arthasastra.

The seeds of the new constructive age, krtayuga, had already been sown and it was inevitable that the new age too should have four classes, headed by aristocrats (devas) who would not be bound by the laws that were applicable to the commonalty. Even as the integrated elite, urban aristocrats (devas), rural feudal lords (asuras), plutocrats (yakshas) and technocrats (uragas)of the frontier society of forests and mountains,enjoyed special rights, privileges and immunities, a new integrated and educated middle class arose. It drew its membership from all the three organised social worlds (lokas) and the non-settled populations (jagats) and took over all functions pertaining to education, science, research, arts and crafts, administration, law and judiciary.

This larger self-reliant, self-governing educated middle class of Brahmans tended to absorb all sections of the population other than the ruling elite and its servants (dasas and dasyus) and the trading communities (Vaisyas). With agriculture and animal husbandry assigned to the Brahmans, the rural areas ceased to have a proletariat. There were however ghettoes to which the unemployed and the morally depraved were assigned and they were unseen and their cries for help remained unheeded.

Markandeya advised Yudhishtira not to antagonise the Brahmans under any circumstance for an enraged Brahman could take a vow to destroy all the social worlds (lokas). Markandeya advised him to be compassionate to all living beings and treat all his subjects (prajas) as his sons. He warned that all learned men sometimes under the influence of the values upheld during their times got confused over what was right and what was not. Even the nobles (devas) failed to arrive at rational conclusions, he warned. Hence if the subjects of the enlarged commonalty were confused he should bear with them, Markandeya advised. Yudhishtira should stick to dharma, in deed, thought and speech.

Vamadeva episode and privileges of the judiciary

Chala who succeeded Parikshit, and his brother, Dala, were overthrown as they deceived Vamadeva, a Brahman. Chala approached the sage and borrowed his famous horses that could run very fast like mind, to capture the deer. But he avoided giving them back to the sage, claiming that only a king deserved to keep them and not a Brahman. He offered two bulls instead and slighted the sage and the Vedas with the remark that the Vedas carried Brahmans like him. [Vamadeva was one of the major contributors to the Rgvedic anthology.] Vamadeva got angry and threatened to send four guards to kill that ruler. The ruler ordered that those who recognised Vamadeva as a person who spoke and thought of killing the king and tried to do so should kill him and his disciples.

Vamadeva advised him to return the horses that he had borrowed if he wanted to escape being killed. The king pointed out that hunting had not been prescribed for Brahmans. He promised not to punish the sage even if the latter uttered lies and to follow his directives if he consented not to ask for those horses. Chala wanted to browbeat the members of the judiciary and withdraw their privileges. Vamadeva told him that Brahmans were exempt from punishment for what they said or thought of or did. Only an educated person who followed the directives of the class of Brahmans (jurists and scholars) rigorously (as in tapas) could gain fame, he said.

Chala said that even if other Ikshvaku kings and his vassals abandoned him to be killed he would not return the horses of Vamadeva. Then his brother, Dala, was crowned. Vamadeva asked him to return those horses as a duty (dharma) to honour Brahmans. But as Dala refused, he was deposed by the judiciary and his wife was crowned as she did not approve Dalas refusal. Dala then returned the sage his horses, Markandeya said.

Baka episode

Yudhishtira and the sages and Brahmans wanted to know how the sage, Baka (an associate of Dalbhya), obtained a long life. Markandeya advised them not to scrutinise the issue whether he really became almost immortal. The Pandavas said that the two sages were accepted by the people of the social world of commonalty as Chiranjivis (living forever) and as friends of Indra, king of the nobles (devas). They wanted to know about the meeting between Baka and Indra. Markandeya said that after the war between the nobles (devas) and the feudal chieftains (asuras) and the defeat of the latter, the commoners (manushyas) were leading a happy life, devoted to dharma. While going on his elephant, Airavata, Indra saw the happy subjects (prajas), many types of abodes (asramas), rivers and rich towns, villages and countries and kings engaged in governing their countries on the basis of dharma, and austere Brahmans living beside lakes and founts and wells. He visited Baka in his forest abode and was welcomed with due honour.

Baka's reservations on admitting the rich to the aristocracy

Indra asked him about his experiences in his long life, what made him sad and what happy. Baka said that persons who lived for a long time found it difficult and painful to live with men who had no affection for others and to leave those who were friendly. He noticed that the poor were held in contempt by the rich and the families of the morally low could flourish while those of the noble persons got ruined. Indra knew how those who were born in low families through wealth got associated with noble families and became respected, Baka said.

Baka (Markandeya, to be precise) was expressing his disapproval of the policy of admitting the rich who had no moral credentials, to the fold of aristocracy. This policy had corrupted the cadres of the nobles (devas), the plutocrats (danavas), the free intelligentsia (gandharvas), the commoners (manushyas), the technocrats (uragas) and the guards (rakshas), Baka pointed out. Those who were born in good families were lured by those born in morally low families and harassed. The poor were being insulted by the rich. The ignorant rich were happy while the highly learned (medhavi) suffered afflictions. The commoners (manushyas) of the core society were seen to suffer, the sage who had a long experience said.

Indra asked Baka what gave happiness to those who lived for ever (chiranjivis). Baka replied that one who had no bad friends and lived a simple and healthy eating but green leaves after feeding his guests, servants and elders and who was not greedy like dogs and did not eat others food was happy. [He advised the hosts to entertain their Brahman guests with food and fees (dakshina) to get rid of their past sins. This must have been a later addition.]

Sibi, the ideal Kshatriya

Markandeya then told them what traits made a Kshatriya great. He cited the instance of two friends, Suhotra of the Kuru lineage and Sibi of Usinara, coming from opposite directions and talking with each other without either giving the right of way to the other. Narada who saw their dilemma cited certain verses implying that a good person would be good even with a bad person and hence a good person could not be but good in his relations with another good person. He would extol the help given to him by others. Even the nobles (devas) had not yet agreed on who among them was superior to others. Suhotra should recognise Sibi as superior to him as the latter was better than the former in good conduct. Narada added that a greedy person should be conquered by generosity, a liar by truth, a cruel person by kindness and an unsuitable person by suitability. Suhotra agreed and gave the right of way to Sibi, Narada said, according to Markandeya.

Deserving gifts and Yayati

Markandeya then narrated an incident that showed the greatness of Yayati. A Brahman who approached that king for alms said that he would ask for alms on one condition. The king should give him alms with kindness and not like other alms-givers who despised those who sought alms from them. Yayati said that he would not pride himself on having given alms and would not offer to give what one should not ask for. By promising to give and by giving what served the alms-seeker and asked for, Yayati said that he could lead a happy life. He never regretted having to part with the things asked for. Yayati thus gifted the Brahman a huge herd of cattle. Markandeya gave a subtle hint to Yudhishtira to be cautious about to whom he gave alms and what alms were sought from him and not to regret later for giving away suitable gifts to the deserving persons. (Ch.198 Vanaparva)

Gift of taxes instead of horses to Brahmans

Markandeya then narrated events from the careers of Vrshadarbha and Setuka, two kings who followed the path prescribed in the science of political policy (nitisastra) and were experts in missiles and weapons (astras and sastras). Vrshadarbha adhered to the stand that only gold and silver should be given as gifts to Brahmans. Setuka (who was a regent during an interregnum) learnt about it. Once, a Brahman asked him for a thousand horses. Setuka pleaded inability to meet his request and suggested that he might approach Vrshadarbha instead.

Vrshadarbha hit him with a whip. The Brahman intended to curse him when the ruler asked him whether it was proper for one to gift away what he had to keep with himself and whether it was for a Brahman to curse one for not being willing to give the gift that the Brahman desired. The Brahman explained how he had been sent by Setuka. Vrshadarbha realising that he was being tested offered to gift the Brahman the taxes that he collected that morning, for they were more than enough to buy a thousand horses.

Sibi: Indra and Agni: Eagle and Dove

Markandeya then narrated how the nobles (devas) tested whether Sibi, ruler of Usinara, was really as generous as he was famed to be. Agni, the representative of the weak and gentle intelligentsia took refuge with Sibi claiming that he was being chased by a violent and dangerous person. The allegory presents Agni as a dove and his enemy as an eagle.

Sibi's political counsellor (purohita) said that Agni (who was innocent like the dove) seeking asylum with him should be interpreted as a bad omen, indicating lack of security for the weak and the pious and that he should give gifts as atonement, to correct the failure in the performance of his duty to protect them. The dove then identified himself as a student (Brahmachari) who had studied hard and thoroughly the Vedas and was engaged in tapas, endeavour to find out the unknown and who never spoke against the views of his teacher. He told the king that handing over a student of Vedas (Srotriya) to his opponent was not a valid gift.

The eagle told the king that the living beings (pranis) at the bare subsistence level went through different careers with each career being treated as a birth in a particular cadre. Sibi too had gone through the stage of a student and was hence interested in protecting such a student who of course continued to be a senior student of Vedas while the former had become a king. By protecting the weak who sought asylum with him Sibi would be interfering with the means of livelihood of the mightier (!).

The point of view of the rich and mighty elucidated so clearly and so well had not been taken into account by any commoner (manushya) in the past. Sibi was required to contemplate over the issue whether the king should protect the rights and interests of the rich and mighty at the cost of those of the poor and the weak or the latter at the cost of the former.

Sibi knew that a ruler who handed over a weak person who sought asylum with him to the opponent of that person would not be able to get protection from others. His country would not flourish. The elders would opt to go away from such a ruler who feared to protect the weak against the mighty. Even if he had been admitted to the cultural aristocracy on the strength of his good deeds he would soon lose the membership and status of that cadre (svargaloka). He would be beaten by Indra, the chief of the elite with his powerful weapon, vajra, for his act of betrayal. Hence he offered to send beef to the residence but not hand over the weak dove to him. [The chronicler mentions that it would be the flesh of a bull and not of a cow.]

The Rich Vs the Poor

The rich and mighty argued that they had the right to live on what they desired and rejected to accept any thing else other than that or anything more than what they were entitled to. The nobles (devas) had permitted them to live on the wealth of the poor and the weak. They claimed that they were only attaching the wealth of the deceased. Sibi was faced with an issue that pertained to the constitution.

The nobles while proscribing exploitation of the poor by the rich and calling upon the state to protect the weak against the mighty, had permitted the rich (and not the state) to attach the wealth of the deceased and had not accepted the concept of inheritance of property of the procreator by the offspring. (Sibi could not stake his claim to the property, flesh, of the dove, his mother.)

If the dove symbolised the unarmed, poor commoners who were represented by Agni, the eagle symbolised the rich armed elite headed by Indra. While the Indra-Agni dichotomy characterised the traditional Vedic social polity, there were lacunae in the laws of those times. Sibi was a reformed feudal chieftain who had committed himself to the protection of the weak and the exploited and would not allow the rich to feed on the poor. He was willing to obey any directive of the nobility that would not go against this commitment. Would the feudal lords (daityas) like Sibi consent to part with their own property to their arch-rivals, devas, to protect the interests of the weak commoners?

The rich elite not superior to the state

Sibi was pointed out that all property that the rich under his charge (the thighs) could be made to part with did not equal the one that the commoners and the intelligentsia had. He realised that the wealthier sections of the body politic could not equal in importance these two sectors which had no property of their own. When Sibi offered his entire body, that is, the state and its wealth, in lieu of the meagre wealth of the commonalty and the intelligentsia represented by Agni (dove) to meet the demands of the rich elite headed by Indra (eagle), Indra beat a hasty retreat. The elite (nobles, devas) might have greater rights with respect to wealth than the commoners and the intelligentsia had but they were not superior to the state that Sibi had established.

Sibi superior to Ashtaka, Pratardana and Vasumanas

Markandeya told Yudhishtira how Narada considered Sibi to be more venerable than Ashtaka, Pratardana and Vasumanas who were followers (sons) of Visvamitra. According to Narada, Ashtaka was proud of the liberal gifts (of cows) that he had made and hence was not eligible for a place in the cultural aristocracy (svargaloka). Pratardana too was liberal in his gifts to Brahmans but grudged giving them the horses that they asked for and resented being forced to pull his chariot in the absence of horses and accused the Brahmans of not knowing what ought to ask for and what ought not to be asked for. Vasumanas misled the Brahman who asked for his chariot by claiming to have donated it to the latter without actually giving him that vehicle.

Narada considered Sibi who was sedate and did not seek wealth or fame and was not carried away by the warnings not to entertain a stranger who had come in the guise of a Brahman, to be superior not only to the other three kings but also to himself who was a sage. Sibi followed the path shown by the pious (sadhus) and did not long for any thing, wealth or worldly fame or even spiritual benefits.

Markandeya on Indradyumna

The Pandavas had heard that Markandeya though he looked young had personal knowledge of the events of the past. They enquired him about the careers of the great personages who were senior to him. When Markandeya came across the famous Rajarshi Indradyumna, the latter had lost his place among the ranks of the nobles (svargaloka) to which the latter had been admitted for a short duration in appreciation of his noble deeds. Markandeya said that he could not meet Indradyumna earlier as the former was engaged in intense study of the socio-political constitution as enshrined in the Vedas (Brahma). It did not give him time to commence any personal project (karya).

Indradyumna asked Markandeya whether he knew any one who was senior to the latter and could guide him. Markandeya asked him to meet Pravara Karna (described as a lizard that survived all hazards) who lived in the Himalayas. The latter referred that Rajarshi to Nalijanga (compared to a crane that had visited all areas and weathered all changes) who lived in a pond. Nalijanga referred them to Akupara (described as a tortoise which survived for several centuries).

When Akupara vouched for the great sacrifices that Rajarshi Indradyumna had performed the nobles took that Rajarshi back into their fold. Indradyumna found that a place in the nobility could be gained by one in the subaltern on the basis of what the people (jana) opined about that persons deeds. Markandeya implied that the concept of gods will and grace was not to be given credence to and that a king rose or fell in the social ladder because of his deeds or misdeeds as assessed by the natives of his country. This was a very ancient approach, he pointed out.

Markandeya, Rajarshi Nrga and Krshna

Markandeya also asked the Pandavas to follow the guidance given by Krshna, son of Devaki, who had enabled Rajarshi Nrga to rise from the level of the subaltern (naraka) to that of the nobles (svarga). (Nrga had been a free man who functioned as a messenger humming music all his way like the waters of a stream.) It was not necessary that one should have been born a prince, Rajanya, to follow the path of the nobles (devayana) and be admitted to the nobility.

On when to be generous

Yudhishtira wanted to know when one should offer generous gifts (dana) to be assessed as equal to a noble (deva). Was this a duty to be carried out only while one was a householder or a tendency developed even in childhood or only when he had become a youth and confident of earning enough to spare for others or when he had attained maturity as an aged person and realised the futility of worldly possessions? When would he experience the benefits of such generosity, Yudhishtira wanted to know. He was eager to know more about the subtleties of the directive to be generous. The new age upheld this duty to be more important than that of acquiring knowledge and performing the prescribed rites including yajnas. These three duties had been prescribed for the members of the three higher classes (varnas). Only the poor and uneducated workers, Shudras, were exempt from them.

Four rules for state protection of earnings and property

Markandeya explained that four types of careers (janma) were said to be of no avail and that sixteen types of giving (dana) were similarly of no merit. One who had no son was not eligible to own property. Hence his efforts to earn wealth (whether worldly or other-worldly and spiritual) would not result in any gain to him. He was not eligible to hold on to his inherited property and his savings from his present earnings were insecure. Both could be attached by the state.

Those who did not adhere to the path of dharma were not eligible to retain their wealth for they had earned it by unrighteousness means. One who appropriated the earnings of others and deprived them of their rightful food and wealth was not eligible for protection. He stood to lose all his wealth including his own earnings and his parading as a rich man would be in vain. Neither the state nor the society would protect him and his wealth. Such pretenders to the status of liberal aristocrats would not succeed in their objective.

Earnings not offered as prescribed yajna is unsecured

The social laws (dharma) had prescribed that those who worked and earned their livelihood should spare one-fourth of their earnings as offerings made at formal sacrifices (yajnas) for the maintenance of the three cadres, nobles (devas), sages (rshis) and elders (pitrs) who were not engaged in productive economy.

If a householder failed to perform this duty he was liable to be declared ineligible to enjoy any portion of his earnings. The state could acquire them and if they were stolen by others the state could not be expected to come to their rescue. As he had been selfish and eaten all that he had earned without sharing them with others as prescribed he could not expect others to sympathise with him.

One may lie to protect cows and Brahmans

Rshi Markandeya added that a king or administrator who uttered lies for purposes other than protection of cows and Brahmans who could not protect themselves as they were bound by the rules pertaining to non-violence (ahimsa) and truth (satya) stood to lose his position and all that he had earned. Markandeya was for a rational interpretation of the duties and orientations prescribed by dharma.

Assistance not to be sought by those held in high esteem

One who had given up worldly life and opted to stay on trees and be engaged in tapas was given food and other necessities by his devotees. No help was to be given by way of gift to such an aruda who climbs down and falls in esteem (patita). The sage meant that one in a high status did not need assistance from others and that if he accepted any assistance offered it meant that he had lost that high status. Markandeya wanted that members of the intellectual aristocracy should not be required to be engaged in worldly activities to earn their livelihood but should be able to maintain their high status with their followers looking after their needs. The aruda could not claim the collections made by him from gullible commoners as valid gifts.

CHAPTER 53

MARKANDEYA COUNSELS THE PANDAVAS

Valid Gifts and Invalid Gifts

Only gifts made from wealth earned by just means as approved in the policy science (nitisastra) would be treated as valid gift. Such gifts were exempt from taxes. Law required that the gift made should not be from ill-gotten wealth. The latter was liable to be appropriated by the state. The donor is warned against offering donations to apostates (patita) and Brahmans who had been found guilty of theft and teachers who loved to utter lies (make false claims about their scholarship).

The king was advised not to help sinners and ungrateful persons with gifts. He was also warned against offering gifts to the priests who officiated at sacrifices meant for the welfare of all the residents of the village. The priests were expected to render free service for this purpose and not accept gifts. (This rule must have been introduced during the later medieval times that were noted for social decadence.)

The donor was advised not to help with gifts those who accepted fees for reciting Vedic hymns. There was interdict on the priests who officiated at the sacrifices performed by ineligible persons like (Shudra) workers who did not know the meaning of the hymns chanted at those sacrifices. He was told that a gift offered to one who was but an associate Brahman, (brahma bandhu) that is, who had not studied the Vedas but helped the officer of the judiciary (brahma), was not treated by the laws as a valid gift.

Similarly he should not extend financial assistance by way of gift to a Brahman priest who had married a middle aged woman. For such marriage was not meant for fulfilment of any ritual and savoured of alliance for sex. Gifts made to those who were in the clutches of prostitutes were not valid gifts. The social and state laws would not like illicit sex to be abetted. The gifts claimed to have been paid to those who recruited labourers from mobile groups (sarpas) and to personal servants were not approved by law. (They were treated as expenses incurred for production of goods.)

All valid gifts had to be made knowing well that they were from wealth properly earned and were being given to only eligible persons. But there were some who were not aware how they had acquired that wealth and whether the recipients were eligible persons. They had got their wealth by inheritance and might not have known whether their parents had earned their wealth justly. Some gifts were made out of ignorance about the nature of wealth gifted and the eligibility of the recipient. Some made gifts out of fear of the recipient and some out of anger with their relatives.

An enigma: valid gifts and exemption from taxes

Markandeya viewed that the wealth which one was eligible to inherit but had been given away gratis out of ignorance or out of fear or in rage by his parents even before he was born would be treated as valid gifts and as eligible for benefits extended by the state. But the recipients of that gifted wealth would not be exempt from tax if they were not eligible to receive gifts. Markandeya was dealing with an enigma in the rules on gifts. The simplified code required all the four socio-economic classes (varnas) and those outside them to help the needy through gifts (dana) from their earnings or from their inherited wealth. The donors would be duly exempt from the proposed tax and the recipient if eligible would be exempt from tax.

This simple code defined dharma as charity given and artha as acquired wealth. It had only one duty, dana (to offer gifts) that was prescribed for all. The other three duties, performing sacrifices (yajna), studying (vidya) and performing strenuous endeavour to discover new knowledge (tapas) were meant for those who wanted to enter the intellectual aristocracy. These three duties were not prescribed for commoners whether rich or poor.

It may be remarked here that the editors of Manava Dharmasastra realised that for admission to that aristocracy only tapas, strenuous effort at discovering the unknown, should be prescribed as the necessary qualification and that sacrifice (yajna) and acquisition of accumulated knowledge (study of Vedas) were duties like offering charity (dana) meant for the three upper classes. The poor workers should be exempt from all the four duties.

One became owner of ancestral property even when he was in his mothers womb and was eligible to enjoy the benefits of its being given away as valid gift even before he became aware of its legal implications. The sage held that whoever offered gifts to Brahmans consciously, that is, as a youth or as a householder obtained the benefits of such an offering later in his life and not immediately. He would have to pay taxes on his earnings without immediate concessions for his act of generosity but would be honoured later as a donor eligible for a place in the intellectual aristocracy of elders with his needs looked after by the state in return for his magnanimity.

Of course, one who consciously abetted the activities of undesirable persons with material aid would suffer at the hands of law. Hence all gifts might be offered to Brahmans (jurists who were free from desire for wealth or fame and were totally impartial in their approach) by a person who sought to conquer the path of the liberal nobles (devayana, svargamarga), Markandeya said.

The members of the judiciary were not on the pay-rolls of the state though dharmasthas who were trustees of public property were like amatyas, members of the executive and their salaries were determined by the arthasastra. They were invited by the head of the state to assist him and they were free to accept honoraria (gifts) from the ruler as well as from the people who were not parties to the disputes that came up before them for adjudication.

Yudhishtira asked him how the Brahmans who subsisted on the gifts given to them by members of the four classes (varnas) helped them out of hardships and sins and how they themselves got out of these. The sage treated the formulae (japas) that they repeated as personal prayers, the formulae (mantras) chanted at religious rites as counsel to the audience, the rites (homa) that they performed for their and the latters benefit and the study of Vedas, to a boat representing the Vedic injunctions that would take them across the dangerous river of sins. They took others along with them in that boat to the other side.

Admission to the aristocracy and verdict of the jury

Markandeya pointed out that the nobles (devas) were pleased with the talent of the person who met the tough expectations of the Brahmans (jurists) and satisfied them. In every case that came up for the verdict of the jury whose members the Brahmans were, the latter too were on trial. A commoner (manushya) could be admitted to the fold of the nobility if the latter were satisfied after he was found fit by the jurists.

Admission of a commoner to the aristocracy

Was it imperative that the commoner should please the nobles to be able to gain entry to their ranks? Markandeya asserted that a verdict in his favour given by the Brahman jurists was enough to gain entry to the ranks of the nobles (svargaloka). In other words the nobility could not but honour that verdict and admit the eligible commoner to its ranks. It may be noted here that some members of the upper stratum of the commonalty (vis) were admitted to the cadre of visvedevas from among whom the nobles (devas) were selected. Devas and Visvedevas were not gods. Who should be admitted to the nobility was not decided by the nobles on the basis of peer approval. The jurists (Brahmans) had to declare a person as fit to be admitted to the rank of devas.

Eligible for admission to meritorious intelligentsia

Though seriously ill and his body weakened by phlegm, a commoner who was about to die and was yet aware of his duties could get recognised as a permanent member of the class of free intellectuals (punyaloka) (like the gandharvas and siddhas) who had done virtuous deeds. For such admission that was more in the nature of a honorary member of the house of nobles rather than an active member of it, he had to satisfy the expectations of the feudal lords (asuras) who had the status of elders (pitrs) and the nobles (devas), the two sectors of the ruling elite and the cadre of jurists (Brahmans) who were superior to these two sectors. [During the times of Yudhishtira most of the rulers of the rural areas were retired feudal lords and the aristocracy was confined to the urban areas.]

One who sought membership of the nobility (svargaloka) had to approach only the Brahman jurists. Markandeya pointed out to Yudhishtira that a commoner (manushya) could ascend to the ranks of the gandharvas, free and virtuous intellectuals, with the consent of both the rival sections of the ruling elite, asuras and devas, and that of the Brahman jurists. The later Vedic times had four classes, devas, asuras, gandharvas and manushyas. A commoner (manushya) could be admitted to the ranks of the nobles (devas) if he was found fit to be declared as a visvedeva by the Brahmans, the judiciary.

But for recognition as a member of the free intelligentsia that was exempt from political control, the two wings of the ruling elite (devas and asuras) had to grant approval. The judiciary was only a recommendatory body in this case. For gaining membership of the nobility he was required to get the mandatory approval only of the judiciary which interpreted the socio-political constitution, Brahma.

Guests and priests at sraddha rites

Markandeya recommended that the commoner should endeavour to feed guests on the occasions when he was required to perform annual memorial rites (sraddha) for the deceased members of his family. But he should try to avoid inviting undesirable elements like weaklings, diseased, lepers, jugglers, ruffians, bastards and wielders of weapons. Presence of such persons would harm the performer (karta) of the (religious) rites. The deaf, the dumb and the blind were not to be invited to officiate at these sraddha rites along with those who had mastered the Vedas. The priests at these rites were expected to be fully competent to perform their duties. It is not to be construed that Markandeya endorsed discrimination against physically handicapped persons. He told Yudhishtira that gifts (dana) should be offered only to that suitable Brahman scholar who would help his donor and himself to overcome the threat of being washed away by the flood of sins.

Gift was not intended to be financial assistance to weaker sections of the society. Only a flawless Brahman, who was capable of saving his donor from sins and who would accept only that gift, which would not compromise his status as a pure intellectual, was competent to receive the gift that was being given to guests. Markandeya exhorted Yudhishtira to feed his guests as the civil judges, Agnis, of the Vedic times, were pleased more with the act of feeding guests at such rites by the hosts than with any other offering made by them. The sage said that those hosts who treated their guests as superior to them and attended on them with respect would not be hauled up by the Vedic official Yama for violation of any rule of procedure.

Markandeya explained to Yudhishtira who was then staying in a forest abode as an exile and had the status of a senior and respected (sreshta) king (raja) what he was expected to offer as gifts and to whom. The rich residents of the forest area (that came under the jurisdiction of antariksham, the third social world) were expected to entertain the devatas, rshis and pitaras (retied senior citizens) as guests while those of the agrarian tracts (prthvi) entertained devas (nobles), rshis (sages) and pitrs (elders including retired authoritarian feudal lords). The plutocrats (yakshas) and technocrats (nagas) of the forest society had the status of devatas, marginally lower than that of the liberal aristocrats (devas). The host should welcome the nobles (devas or devatas) by offering them garlands.

Even a king was expected to show the same respect to them (devatas, rshis and pitaras) and to the Brahman guests as the rich hosts did. Offering scents and flowers and rendering personal service to them to ease them of their physical discomfort were superior in merit to offering cows as gifts. Of course, gifting a brown cow was undoubtedly virtuous, the chronicler agreed. It freed the host from the sense of guilt that hung around him. It should be given to a poor Brahman who had studied the Vedas and was a householder and performed agnihotra sacrifice where scholars explained civil laws, and who bore the responsibility for the maintenance of his wife and children. Students, retired senior citizens, ascetics and those who were not poor Brahman priests or teachers were not eligible to be given cow as gift (dana). The rich were not eligible to be recipients of any gift. What was received as gift was not to be sold. One who would not be able to protect the cow received as gift should not be given that gift.

Markandeya advised that a cow might be given as gift only to one Brahman and not to a group of Brahmans allowing them to sell or barter it and share the receipts. A faultless Brahman might be instead given a gold coin to help him to invest it and become rich. What was invested should remain a permanent saving and capital. The Brahman might be given a bull to pull his cart or agricultural land. It should not be construed that a learned Brahman was required to earn his livelihood only by priesthood and teaching and was barred from other vocations like craft and agriculture. The host too would get his high desires fulfilled by aiding the Brahman through gifts to pursue these vocations.

As the Brahmans were not permitted to earn their livelihood by selling knowledge (vidya) they had to be helped to become agriculturists or cowherds or artists and artisans. These learned commoners (Brahmans) might tell other commoners who were weak and exhausted by wandering in search of food and noble donors about the latter and be held to be as helpful and virtuous as the donors themselves.

Brahmadeva: status, tenure and role

Markandeya exhorted Yudhishtira to feed the weak and the poor. He said that one who fed the Brahmans according to his capacity attained a status equal to that of an intellectual aristocrat, Brahmadeva. Nothing is greater than food. Food was called Brahma, Markandeya pointed out. The term, Brahmadeva, was visualised as samvatsara, that is, one who held the position of regulator of all activities for a period of five to six years. These activities were considered to be a sacrifice (yajna) performed without seeking any personal benefit. All assets, fixed and liquid (chara and achara, jangama and sthavara) could be held by one for only the above period and had to be sacrificed thereafter. This was a significant orientation to which Markandeya drew the attention of Yudhishtira who headed a government in exile.

Gifting food was considered to be superior to sacrificing these objects (fixed assets and mobile ones like cattle) periodically. The rich (including kings) who had the merit of having given ponds, founts and wells and houses for the people and food and kind words to the deserving were not liable to be answer to Yama (the Vedic official in charge of social discipline) for any offence. The landlord who had gathered grains through his personal labour and gave them away to one who was by his personal nature (svabhava) a good Brahman would please the agrarian people (bhumi) and the latter too would contribute their mite to this sacrifice with pleasure. The magistrates and the people were told that gifts made to good Brahmans should not be objected to.

Three groups of supporters of dana (donation) orientation

The donor of food leads the way and the person who speaks the truth only (satyavacanam), that is, the person who follows the laws of the later Vedic era follows him and so too the person who of his own without being requested contributes his mite follows him. Markandeya suggests the followers of the new law, dharma, which insisted on generous gifts in charity to the poor and to the deserving Brahmans were mainly rich Vaisyas. Their orientations were followed by the champions of the laws based on truth (satya) who were puritans and not liberals. Commoners too who were not so rich accepted the new orientation that systemised aid in charity was superior to voluntary sacrifice in search of personal merit. All the three were eligible to gain a place in the liberal aristocracy (svarga loka), Markandeya maintained. Yudhishtira and his brothers were delighted with this explanation.

Pure Dharma: Test

The Pandavas asked the sage to tell them the nature of the path that led one to the commune (loka) of Yama, the magistrate who implemented the rules of social discipline and the distance between it and the commonalty, the loka of the manushyas. They also wanted to know its features and how commoners could reach it. [Yama was later visualised as the god of death and men as mortals and gods as immortals.] Markandeya lauded Yudhishtira as the best of the followers of the code of dharma and agreed to tell him as answer to his questions, the highly secret and pure dharma that was praised by the sages. [We would overlook the passages which smack of being later interpolations and dwell on Markandeyas message.]

Markandeya advised Yudhishtira to revere the Brahmans in the manner prescribed by the rules. A Brahman who was weakened by his long trek in quest of the rich man who was known for his liberal offer of food and arrived at the door of the latter was to be treated as a guest (and not as a beggar seeking alms). This scholar and assessor of the merits of liberal, modest and selfless hosts, was eager to call on the latter. The host who was selected by him should make every endeavour to please his guest (atithi) and judge (Brahman).

That guest was being followed by Indra and other nobles who were eager to know whether that host would be approved as a new entrant to the liberal elite. If that guest was revered properly, the nobles would be satisfied with the demeanour of the host; if they were not satisfied they would not grant him peer approval. Markandeya addressing Yudhishtira as Rajendra brought to his notice that though he had the status of an Indra controlling the wealth of the state, he was but a Rajanya and was yet to acquire the status of a noble (deva). Only by honouring in the prescribed way the Brahman guest who was a judge of the constitution bench and called on him to ascertain whether he was genuinely liberal, he could gain the status of a noble.

Yudhishtira was the son of (Dharma) Yama, a deva and magistrate, and wanted to be admitted to the commune or community of magistrates (Yamas) nominated by the nobles in accordance with the provisions of the socio-political constitution (Brahma). That appointment would take him far from the commonalty (manushyas) but the passage to that higher level was not easy. The sage pointed out to him that he had been briefed on this secret many times earlier too.

Reformation of feudal lords

Yudhishtira then wanted to learn from him aspects of dharma other than gaining the status of a liberal noble by entertaining the Brahman jurist as a venerable guest. Markandeya then recalled to him the importance of gifting a brown cow at Jyeshta Pushkara, that is, in tune with the earlier constitution that gave precedence to the feudal lords (pitrs, asuras) over the liberal nobles (devas). The cow should have been gifted to a person selected by the pitrs (asuras or feudal lords who had retired from authority) to a Brahman jurist who acknowledged their authority. According to the saying, as long as the agricultural economy (bhumi) then controlled by the feudal lords (asuras) was approved by the upholders of the constitution (Brahmans), the pitrs (the retired feudal lords) would draw sustenance from it and not resort to violence to extract wealth from the agriculturists. We should not lose sight of the implications of this procedure of converting feudal lords to noble ways.

How a rich landlord welcomed the different guests

Markandeya told Yudhishtira that Agnis, Vedic officials in charge of the civil judiciary that had jurisdiction over the commonalty of the agro-pastoral plains appreciated the words of respect with which the rich host welcomed the jurist who had jurisdiction over the entire larger society according to the socio-political constitution, Brahma. Indra, the chief of the nobility (devas) would be satisfied with being offered a seat at the proceedings of the civil court where the presence of the Brahman jurist was required. The elders, pitrs, who were also former feudal lords, asuras, expected that the host sponsoring those proceedings honoured them by touching their feet and washing them with water. Brahmadeva, the chief judge and member of the nobility would be pleased with being treated as the chief guest, atithi, and offered food (anna).

Brahmadanda and Vagdanda

Markandeya asserted that the gifts offered to a Vedic scholar, srotriya, who upheld and followed the laws based on dharma, would yield the required benefits to the host. The sage asked Yudhishtira to note that the learned Brahmans, members of the judiciary, could use their anger as weapons to strike their enemies and those who did not obey their orders. [It is irrational to hold that scholars were all entitled to get angry with others.] Markandeya held that Brahmans were not entitled to take to arms and go to war. [He did not approve the actions of Parasurama and the Bhrgus who followed him.] Even as Indra used his weapon, vajra, to kill the asuras, the judges (Brahmans) killed the guilty by their angry words, known as Brahmadanda.

This stand on dharma that justice could be rendered in peoples court by Brahman judges without requiring use of political and military power was in accordance with that of the sages of the Naimisha forest, Markandeya said. The commoners of the forest society amidst which the Pandavas then resided as exiles (and those of the agrarian plains) would become free from sorrow, fear, rage and sins, if they realised the implications of this narration, he said. Dharma upheld the power of the unarmed judiciary (Brahma) backed by the nobles (devas) and the feudal lords (asuras, pitrs) and the civil judges (agnis) to punish the guilty and protect the innocent and honest persons.

Three types of purity: speech, deed and water

Yudhishtira then asked the sage what was meant by observation of purity that was prescribed for one to be recognised as a follower of dharma. Markandeya drew his attention to the three types of purity, speech (vak), deed (karma) and water (jala). The first referred to chanting of the gayatri formula at sunrise, noon and sunset. By chanting it a Brahman would be exonerated of the sin even if he accepted the entire country surrounded by the seas as gift (dana).

Implied in it was the stand that only under extraordinary circumstances might the chief justice (Brahman) of a country could agree to take over the administration of the country given to him by its deposed king or officials or representatives of the people or by its elite. This chant was addressed to Aditya (Surya), a noble (deva) who headed the administration and the army (kshatras). Surya and his subordinates (satellites, grahas), whether cruel or gentle, would be favourable to the chief justice (Brahman) stepping in as regent.

Even the ferocious militant guards (rakshasas) would not harass a Brahman chief who was associated with the gayatri. Markandeya claimed that the Brahmans could not be hauled up for teaching Vedas to others or for officiating at their religious rites or for accepting wealth unjustly earned by them. He conceded merit in these claims of the Vipras that they could not be proceeded against for not following the new regulations that barred Brahmans from teaching or officiating at the Shudras and other lower classes including criminals and sinners.

Markandeya declared that the Brahman jurists were not to be disrespected by any one whether he had studied the Vedas or not and whether he was pure or not. Like the civil judge, Agni, who held his court wherever necessary, (even at the burial ground or crematorium, if necessary), the Brahman judge was pure. The Brahman judge had the status of a senior devata, a status marginally lower to that of a liberal cultural aristocrat, deva.

Markandeya pointed out that the towns freed by the Brahman jurists from the clutches of the rich and the mighty were marked not by their mansions or by fortifications but by the presence of the intelligentsia who were known for their good practices and strenuous endeavour to gain knowledge of the yet unknown. Civilisation had to be judged by the culture of the learned and their acquisition of further knowledge and not by the wealth of the citizens or by the might of the rulers of the cities.

Whether a township was located in a pastoral area or in a forest if it had scholars who knew the social and economic codes (sastras), it deserved to be called a city (nagara). It was a cultural and educational centre (tirtha) that was visited by scholars for gaining knowledge about administration.

The sage said that a commoner (manushya) who personally approached the king who protected the people and the Brahman scholars who were engaged in strenuous endeavour to know what was yet not known to any one so far (tapas) would get exonerated of the sins (papa) from violations of the social and moral codes. Visit to such holy centres where virtuous persons held their academic sessions (punya tirthas) and uttering pure thoughts and conversing with the pious (sadhu) were lauded by the learned. [The concept that bathing in holy rivers would absolve one of all sins came to hold the minds of the commoners during the period of decadence when these centres ceased to attract scholars.]

Markandeya would consider the kind words of the pious that good persons hear from them as purifying them even as bathing in water made one pure. If ones thoughts became pure it was not necessary for him to observe any austere practice (vrata). Even if the objects enjoyed through the six senses (eyes, ears, nostrils, tongue, skin and mind) were impure in the views of the codes (sastras), those senses (indriyas) would be able to extract noble benefits from and experience the best of those objects. But that experience from impure objects would not be beneficial in gaining liberation from worldly life (moksha), Markandeya said.

One might be able to lead a pious life even when he is given to the pleasures of wealth and sex but such a life would not lead him to the highest object, moksha. Such persons would not be able to control their distorted (vikara) mind (manas), Markandeya explained to Yudhishtira. He pointed out that the great persons who did not commit sins by mind or speech or deed or intellect did not need to undergo physical hardships as austerity (tapas).

The sage said that one who was extremely detached and failed to show compassion to his suffering relatives including ones son could not be considered as being free from sins though he might be physically pure. Abstinence from food was not considered to be tapas. A commoner (manushya) who observed purity and was well-dressed would be treated as an ascetic (muni) if he was kind to others throughout his life. Though he stayed in his house (as a grahastha) and had not retired to the forest abode (as a vanaprastha) he was free from all sins. Markandeya was drawing attention to the misconceptions about stoicism. Abstinence from food only weakened the body and did not rinse one of his sins. One would only suffer if he performed acts (karmas) of purification not mentioned in the codes (sastras). [The chronicler was not prepared to accept the rites recommended by the texts followed by the heterodox elements.]

The civil judge, agni, would not burn out (declare as valid) the deeds of a person who did not have good intentions. Men were admitted to the cadres of good peoples if they were compassionate and pure in thought, deed and body. Markandeya agreed that adherence to vows like abstinence from food contributed to purity. But he did not approve the practices like living on roots and fruits or on air and giving up permanent residences and wandering, observing silence, shaving the head or wearing long hair or sleeping on the ground or regular fasting or serving agni (who represented the commonalty and functioned as the civil judge) or bathing in rivers as ways for a commoner to attain a higher social level.

Markandeya pointed out that pursuit of knowledge (jnana) and performing prescribed duties (karma) freed one from disease, age and death and helped him to attain the higher level of the nobles. The soul (atma) does not once again experience the pains caused by desires that were burnt by knowledge (jnana), he said. It was freed from the body which slowly vanished even as the surf cast on the shore vanished with the waters receding into the sea. One who identified himself by following the implications of even half of the couplet (sloka) of the Upanishad with the great soul (paramatma) that was in all beings (pranis) did not need anything. Markandeya was referring to the statement tat tvam asi (that art thou). It called upon the individual to realise that his soul was the same as that great soul.

He said that some persons obtained the knowledge (jnana) that enabled one to become free (moksha) from worldly bonds. Meditating on the implications of the two syllables, tat tvam of the utterance of the socio-political constitution, Brahma, outlined by the numerous Upanishads one could reach the level of the chief jurist, Brahma. Markandeya warned that one who doubted the validity of the above stand would not be able to have happiness in his career in the present social world (of commoners) or in the other social world (of nobles). The elders who have secured the correct knowledge (jnana) considered trust in the above stand (pratyaya) to be a means to become free (moksha) from worldly bonds.

Markandeya was referring to the views of the experienced persons who claimed that liberation from the cycle of births was what should be aimed at and not mere elevation from a lower social level to a higher one through noble deeds. He claimed that one who knew the implications of the statement tat tvam asi with respect to the soul (atma) understood well the uses of the Vedas. That commoner (manushya) would shrink from the acts that according to the Vedas got one entangled irretrievably in the cycle of births.

If Yudhishtira wanted to know the meaning of tat tvam of the constitution, Brahma, expressed by the pranava, the monosyllable, aum by resorting to the logical system (hetu, motives), he should accept the Vedas and Smrtis as authoritative and cease to resort to other intellectualistic methods of inquiry. The sage explained to Yudhishtira that the knowledge (jnana) that ones soul was the same as that of every person and that it was not different from that of the great soul (tat tvam asi) could not be achieved by an untrained person who did not utilise the means necessary (sadhana) to realise this unity. The will and interests of every individual are the same as those of every other person and hence identical with those of the common will.

This principle, tat tvam asi, was enshrined in the socio-political constitution, Brahma. Markandeya would describe the Vedic hymns as the body whose soul was this principle. He found that an individual who was not part of a social group (was but an atma, an isolated individual) did not have the ability to comprehend the above spirit known as Brahma tattvam. The principle (tattvam) behind the above trait of the soul of the individual, atma that was not bound by social bonds could be appreciated only by the principle guiding intellectual (buddhi) inquiry, Markandeya said.

The length of life that according to the Vedas one could live and the benefits extended by the nobles to the commoner for his deeds and the talent which the individual (sariri) involved in social activities had for carrying out the purposes (karya) determined by the nobles (devas) were in tune with the epoch through which the social world (loka) was going through, the sage said. Markandeya was drawing attention to the duration of each of the four epochs and its specific characteristics and orientations.

Yudhishtira wanted to know how the tendency to be involved in sins caused by the senses (indriyas) could be avoided. Markandeya clarified that the best way was to restrain the senses including the mind and not resorting to fasting. He also pointed out that the level of the aristocracy could be achieved through tapas and happiness could be experienced through generosity. By visiting the cultural centres (tirthas) one could be absolved of sins. One could become free from worldly bonds (moksha) through acquisition of knowledge (jnana).

Yudhishtira wanted to know from Markandeya the rules pertaining to what was deemed as the best donation (dana). The sage offered to tell him the confidential messages of the Vedas and Dharmasastras on the donations. One who performed sraddha rites during the constellation known as gajacchaya under the pipal tree would not face decline in wealth for several years. These rites required feeding nobles (devas), sages (rshis) and elders (pitaras), the three non-economic sections of the society as guests and witnesses. One who provided the means of livelihood and a residential house for a Brahman (jurist) would be treated as equal to one who had offered sacrifice (yajna) to the chiefs (devatas) of the forest society under whose jurisdiction he lived.

Offering horses to a suitable person at the spot where the river flowed in the direction opposite to the one taken by him would be permanently beneficial to the donor, according to those works, i.e. the donor would be safe from his enemies. Markandeya advised that the host should treat his guest as equal to Indra, the head of the house of nobles. These hosts would be able to cross the sea of great sins as easily as by a huge ship. The claims about the gifts made to Brahmans on the occasions of eclipses and new-year days and beginnings of the half-yearly courses etc. may be later interpolations. The intellectuals considered that the best and most enduring in all the three social worlds (lokas) were the gifts made.

Vaishampayana addressing Janamejaya as a senior member of the Bharata lineage and as one who held the rank of Maharaja, a king as well as judge told him how Yudhishtira learnt from the sage, Markandeya, how Kuvalayasva, a famous ruler of the Ikshvaku lineage, came to be known as Dundumara. Markandeya knew the lineages of the aristocrats (devas), plutocrats (yakshas) and their guards (rakshasas) and retinue (kinnaras) and also of the royal lineages. He also knew the lineages of commoners (manushyas), technocrats (uragas), the free intelligentsia (gandharvas and apsarases).

Markandeya said that Utanka, a great sage (maharshi) who was also a legislator and a vibhu, head of a local community located in the forest performed a strenuous work (tapas) to please and meet Vishnu (Krshna) who had the status of bhagavan, the head of an academy. The sage, Utanka, noted that Vishnu, the charismatic noble (deva) had pointed out who were to be treated as liberal nobles (devas) and who as feudal lords (asuras) and who were to be treated as subjects (prajas) of the expanded society in addition to the commoners (manushyas) and who among the people at the bare subsistence level (pranis) were to be treated as mobile populations (janghama) and who as immobile persons (sthavara). That head of the academy had brought into existence the Vedas that provided an insight into the highest socio-political constitution (brahma) and required that the latter should be understood by all.

The chronicler then compares the higher open space (akasa) to Vishnus head and the two Vedic officials, Soma (moon) and Surya (sun), to his eyes and Vayu (wind) to his breath and Agni to his influence (tejas, brilliance) as noticed on his face. This purusha imagery would liken the provinces in the different directions to his arms and the ocean (where Vishnu or Narayana lived) to his belly and the mountains to his thighs. It compares the (lower) open space where new groups and individuals who were not yet socialised lived to his navel and the agro-pastoral plains (bhumi) to his feet and the leaves of the plants to his hairs. [This imagery belonged to the period when the four-varnas scheme had not yet come to prevail.]

You can use this area to showcase additional text or photos. Try to reinforce the message on the rest of this page, or simply ask your visitors to contact you, as in the sample below.

Still have questions? Please contact us anytime! We look forward to hearing from you.

Hint: Be sure to include a link to your contact page!