That the vedic Brahmins have been voracious beef-eaters is an established fact and admitted by Brahmin historians themselves. Today’s Hindu nazi parties led by Brahmins, however, strangely oppose beef-eating and use violence to stop cow slaughter. They use state force to ban cow-slaughter while at the same time advocating that if India has to progress, we must go back to vedic days”. Going back to vedic days means Brahmins must take to beef-eating. They demand cow slaughter ban and in the same breath they also advocate “back to vedas”. (DV Nov. 1. 1989 “When Brahmins were gluttonous Beef-Eaters”, Mukundi Lal p. 16 to 21 & DV Dec. 1. 1989 p.22: Secret of cow worship”)
The Nazis do this not because they love the cow which they call their mother. If they are really born to the cow, and not their mothers, why they are permitting widespread beef-eating in Kerala? Are not the Kerala cows their mother? in Kerala, every hotel serves delicious beef-fry and the customers are the very members of the brahminical social order who are today in the forefront of anti-cow slaughter campaign all over India – of course except Kerala.
Here is a verdict on the vedic brahmins, ancestors of today’s Brahmins, who were such gluttonous beef-eaters, The author is a noted Brahmin historian from Maharashtra, D.R. Bhandarker, whose book, Ancient Indian Culture, (1939) is now available in Asian Educational Services – reprint (1989): C2/15, SDA, New Delhi-16. The following is the VI Chapter, “Indianisation” (from his book, pages 70 to 81).
In this Lecture we shall set ourselves to the task of illustrating a different phase of Indian civilisation. I have remarked more than once that when two civilisations impinge upon each other, one adopts and imbibes many features of the other according to the degree of its pre-eminence. And it is always interesting to note what features are so absorbed and by what process. Sometimes, however, some of these features are superimposed upon the old civilization, and it looks as if they too are being absorbed by it. But somehow they are found unassimilable and gradually thrown out till the corresponding features of the old civilization assert themselves in their pristine form and virulence. Both these elements are traceable in the Indianisation of foreign cultures. In fact, we have already pointed out what constituents of Aryan culture were selected and imbibed by Indian civilization. We shall now single out one of the Aryan customs and practices which was discarded by Hinduism although it was being foisted upon it for a long time. Perhaps “Position of Woman in Ancient India” would have been a better subject for this purpose from all points of view, because that would have shown what constituents of non-Indian foreign cultures, Aryan and non-Aryan, were adopted and what others thrown out by Ancient India. But this would require at least four Lectures for its proper elucidation and treatment. We have therefore to be content with “the Cow in Ancient India”, and here we shall describe that peculiar phase of Indianisation which shows what pabulum of foreign culture Ancient India had tried to gulp but ejected because it was found unassimilable.
BEEF IN RIG VEDA We shall turn first to the Vedas, and above all to Rig-Veda to determine whether or not the cow was immolated and also to ascertain what position this animal held in the estimation of the people. Rig-Veda, X, 91, 14 gives us an insight into the kinds of animals that were slaughtered on the occasion of sacrifices, and may be translated as follows:
“He, in whom horses, bulls, oxen, and barren cows (vasa) and rams, when duly set apart, are offered up, – To Agni, Soma-sprinkled, drinker of sweet juice, disposer, with my heart I bring a fair hymn forth”.
It will be seen from this Rik that bulls and barren cows were sacrificed along with horses and rams; and many such hymns from the Vedas can similarly be quoted. Nay, of the animals of sacrifice, bulls and barren cows appear to be favourites of Agni, the god of fire. In Rig-Veda, VIII, 43, 11, e.g. Agni is called ukshanna and vasanna, ie, ‘eater of bulls and of barren cows’. The bulls, again, were killed not only for the purpose of sacrifices but also for food; and there seem to have been regular slaughter-houses kept. This is evident from Rig Veda, X, 89, 14:
“Where was the vengeful dart when thou, Indra, cleavest the demon ever bent on an outrage? When fiends lay there upon the ground extended like cattle (gavah) in the shambles?”
Further, it is worthy of note that the ox-hide was in the time of the Rig- Veda turned to many uses, and served as the material of various objects, such as a bowstring, a sling, reins, the lash of a whip, or thongs to fasten part of the chariot. In fact, the ox-hide was so commonly used that the word go is often employed synonymously with chairman.
In the hymns that have been quoted above, the Sanskrit word used for ‘cow; is vasa, which, truly speaking, signifies ‘a sterile cow’. It, therefore, seems to have been the general practice to sacrifice a cow that was barren. What is to be borne in mind here is the fact that a milch-cow was seldom, if ever, sacrificed, and consequently the sacrificial cow was the sterile cow during the Vedic times, there being apparently no restriction in regard to the slaughter of bulls. In the Atharva-Veda we have a hymn (XII 4) which insists upon the gift of a barren cow being made over to a Brahman as soon as she is discovered to be so.
“The sterile cow in her very birth is born for the gods and Brahmans. Hence to the Brahmins she is to be given: that, they say, guarantees the security of one’s own property”
ARYANS FOREIGNERS
Next, the slaying of a cow formed a most essential feature of the funeral ceremonies also. Thus Rig- Veda, X, 16, 7, has: “(O corpse) put on the armour, which comes from the parts of the cow, (which will protect thee) against Agni: envelop thyself with (her) thick fat”. The meaning of this will be clear from Asvalayana-Grihasutra, IV, 3, which gives detailed directions as to what parts of the cow are to be used and how. Thus we have: “Taking out the omentum of the cow called anustarani he should cover therewith the head and the mouth (of the dead person), with the verse Agner-varma” (V., X. 16.7), and so forth and so on. In fact, all the various parts of a cow slain were used to cover the corresponding parts of a corpse, with the object of ensuring the unimpeded march of the dead person in the next world. It thus clearly indicates that in the time of the Rig-Veda the cow was considered by some to be of great sacramental efficacy.
This peculiar combination of the sense of utility with the sacramental efficacy of the cow did not spring up in the minds of the Aryans after they penetrated and were settled in India as the effect of their new environments, but was a feeling which they shared with their Iranian brothers and which they really brought into India. This is seen from the position which she occupies in the Old Avestic literature and even in the mind of the modern Parsi. In. the 9th chapter of the Vendidad of the Avesta, the purificatory power of the cow’s urine is dilated upon. It is declared to be a panacea for all bodily and moral evils. It is drunk as well as applied externally, as is done by the Hindus also. Urine of the bull or cow, called nirang, is brought to orthodox Parsi houses. every morning, and a small quantity of it is applied to the face, hand and feet. The milk of it is applied to the face, hand and feet. The milk of the cow was a favourite and universal article of food. And “flesh seems also to have been dressed for eating. Bows were strung with the sinews of the ox”. It is thus quite reasonable to hold that the reverence for the cow, as shown in the Vedic hymns cited above, was not something which was new and unknown before and which generated itself in the mind of the Vedic Aryan in his new surroundings but was a feeling which his forefathers harboured and nurtured and which was consequently hereditary.
Although the barren cow was sacrificed and killed even for the sake of ordinary food and the cow- hide was used for various purposes, sacramental and secular, the animal did command an exceedingly high degree of sanctity with some people in those days of yore. Thus in Rig Veda, VIII, 90, we have two verses in praise of the cow. The first of these is as follows:-
Mata Rudranam duhita Vasunam svas-Adityanam-amritasya nabhih Pra nu vocham chikitushe janaya ma gam-anagam-Aditim vadhishtha
Translation “The Rudras Mother, Daughter of the Vasus, centre of nectar, the Adityas’ Sister To folk who understand will I proclaim it kill not the cow, Aditi, the sinless
ASURAS
Here the cow is said to be related to the various divinities and has been asked not to be slain at all. Here the word used is, not vasa, ‘a barren cow’, but gau which denotes the cow in general. In this connection it is worthy of note that another word for cow which occurs in the Rig-Veda is aghnya, which means ‘not fit to be killed, inviolable. Sometimes this word is used by itself, sometimes as an epithet of the cow. Sixteen times has this word been traced in the Rig-Veda, and its masculine form aghnya has also been employed thrice with reference to the bull. It seems that even in the Rigvedic period the whole of the bovine species was. considered inviolable by some composers of the hymns. Who these were it is difficult to say. They must be some pre-Aryan Indians. who became Aryanised like the Asuras and the Vratyas and contributed to the scriptural hymnology of India, for outside India the worship of the cow as a divinity and the inviolability of her person are utterly unknown.
During the period when the Brahmanas were composed, the slaughter of cows seems to have increased. Among the kamyeshtis set forth in the Taittiriya-Brahmana, not only the sacritices of oxen and cows are laid down, but we are even told what kind and description of this animal are to be offered to what deities. Thus we have to sacrifice a dwarf ox to Vishnu; a drooping-horned bull with a blaze on the forehead to Indra as the destroyer of Vritra; a black cow to Pushan, a red cow to Rudra; and so on. This Brahmana notes another sacrifice called Panchasaradiya-sava, the most important element of which was the immolation of seventeen five-year old, humpless, dwarf bulls, and as many dwarf heifers under three years. We refrain from giving more instances, as those just given are sufficient to show beyond all doubt that cows continued to be killed, nay were killed perhaps in large numbers, during the Brahmana period. We shall, however, here notice one or two protests, that are to be met with in a Brahmana and which are the only ones that we have been able to trace in the whole of the Brahmana literature. They are not protests in the strict sense of the word, but rather exhortations against eating beef. It is contained in the Satapatha-Brahmana III.1.2.21, and is as follows:
MADHUPARKA
He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of either the cow or the ox, for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on earth. The gods Spake, “Verily, the cow and the ox support eveything here: come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence, were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were, an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going to the end (or, to destruction) …. Let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox. Neverthless Yajnavalkya said “I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender (h=ovacha Yajnavalkyo=snamy=evaham=amsalam ched=bhava-iti). In spite of the inordinate fondness displayed by Jajnavalkya for beef, this passage from the Satapatha-Brahmana contains an undoubted exhortation against eating bovine flesh, certainly not on religious, but on utilitarian grounds. The other passage also is an exhortation, not a protest, against sacrificing not simply the ox, but all animals, not so much again on utilitarian as on ethical grounds.
We shall now turn to the Sutra literature, which comprise “manuals of conduct in domestic and social relations.” The first of these is called Grihya-sutraas. Here we must confine ourselves only to one or two instances. The name of the Madhuparka rite is familiar to every Hindu, and is set forth in the Asvalayana Grihayasutra (1:24). The personages in whose honour its performance was imperative are a Ritvig priest, a Vedic student on his return home, a king and so forth. The most important offering was of Madhuparka, whose name has been given to the whole ceremony. It consisted of honey and curds. The householder rinsed his mouth twice, and sipped a little water. A cow was thereafter brought forward and offered to the guest. Having mumbled hato me papma me hatah, “destroyed be my sin, my sin be destroyed,” he ordered the immolation of the cow, with the word omkuru (accomplish, amen!). But if he chose to let her loose, he repeated Mata Rudranam duhita Vasunam etc., just the Rik, quoted above, which speaks of the cow as a divinity and as an inviolable creature. Anyhow this rite, ordians Asvalayana, is not to be concluded without flesh-meat. On this the commentator remarks: “when the cow was sacrificed, her flesh served food; but if she was let off, another kind of flesh-meat was provided.” If we carefully reflect upon this passage from the Grihya-sutra, we come to the following conclusions: (1) that those who pertained to the Brahmanic faith were expected to eat meat at least during such an Important ceremony as the Madhuparka; and (2) that some of them considred it to be a sin to eat bovine flesh. Nevertheless, some of them did partake of it, because it was so required by the religious ceremony handed down from time immemorial. In that circumstances they could wash off their sin by the recitation of the mantra (hato me papma &c.) referred to above; but (3) that if they could not get over the qualms of their conscience, they were quite justified in eschewing beef in favour of any other meat This clearly shows that the pre Aryan Indian feeling of reverence for the cow as a divinity was gradually getting the batter of the Brahmanic sense of utility of the animals, because through madhuparka was accepted by the Aryanised Indians, all of them could not bring themselves to have a cow killed in their honour as they considered it to be ‘a sin’ (papama).
EATING OX & GOAT
The Madhuparka ceremony seems to have been very old and popular. In the Satapatha-Brahmana III. 4.1 an account is given of Atithya or hospitable reception of king Soma.
“He, the purchased Soma, truly comes as the sacrificer’s guest-to him (is offered) that (hospitaable reception): even as for king or a Brahman one would cook a large ox or a large he-goat-for that is human (fare offered to guest) and the oblation is that of the gods so he prepares for him that guest-offering”.
This extract from the Satapatha- Brahmana indubitably points to the conclusion that the ceremony of killing an ox in honour of a guest of distinction was prevalent even in the time of the Brahmanas. Nay, there are indications which prove that it was in all likelihood known also in the Rig-Veda period. Madhuparka has been prescribed even in such late works as the Manu (Ill, 119-20) and Yajnavalkya smritis (1, 109-10). Yajnavalkya distinctly lays down that a big ox (mahoksha) or a big goat (mahaja) is to be immolated on such an occasion, but Manu makes no remarks in this respect. There can, however, be no doubt that Manu meant a bull to be killed for the observance of this rite. For in Chapter III. v. 3 he ordains that the student, who, after completing his term, has become a snataka, shall be honoured with a bull (gava), which commentators have rightly taken to mean go-sadhana- Madhuparkena, ‘with Madhuparka which the bull is a means of celebrating. The killing of ox formed such an essential part of the hospitality to be shown to a distinguished guest that a compound word consisting of two words meaning ‘a bull’ and ‘to ki respectively was coined to denga guest. The word is no other than goghna, which, according to Panini, III, 3, 73; means gam hanti tasmai goghno-tithih, in other words, goghna is one for whom one kills a bull, i.e., a guest.
VASISTA LIKED BEEF
We now turn to the literature on Dharma, the earlier stratum of which has been represented by the Dharma-sutras. Vasishtha (XIV. 40) distinctly lays down that “among (domestic) animals those having teeth in one jaw only, excepting camels, (may be eaten)”. This category obviously includes the bovine animal, as we shall see it in detail when we come to consider the views of Manu. Vasishtha, however, makes an exception in favour of milch-cows and draught- oxen, dictated no doubt by the economic exigencies of the state. But he allows their slaughter only for religious purposes because the Vajasaneyaka decalres, says he, that the milch-cow and the draught- ox are medhya or fit for sacrifice. Curiously, Gautama says nothing about animal having teeth in one jaw only, but lays down (XVII. 30) that milch-cows and draught-oxen shall not be killed. statement, however, clearly implies that he allowed the flesh of those cows and those bulls which were not milch-cows and draught-oxen. He thus practically Vasishtha. The case, however, is different with Apastamba who in 1.5.17.29 lays a general embargo on the eating of the but is compelled to allow it even in the case of a milch-cow and draught-ox because like Vasishtha he quotes the Vajasaneyaka declares bull’s flesh as medhya or fit for sacrifice. Because beef-eating has been summarily prohibited by Apastamba, we must not suppose that the cow had become a sacred animal and it was therefore considered sacrilegious to kill her. For in another place ( ordains that if a milch-cow or draught-ox is slain without a reason, the same penance has to be performed as that for killing a Sudra. Haradatta, the commentator, says that a reason for hurting a cow is anger or the desire to obtain meat. And when such a reason does not exist, what is the punishment inflicted upon the killer?
Only such a small penance as that of killing a Sudra. And when the animal, be it noted, is neither a milch-cow nor a draught-ox, such a cow or such an ox may be killed with impunity. Does this show that the cow was regarded by Apastamba as a sacred animal as in modern times? Baudhayana is better and clearer in this respect, because even for the destruction of an ordinary cow he (1.10.19, 3-4) imposes the fine laid down for slaying a Sudra, that is, one bull and ten cows, but for killing a milich- cow or a draught-ox, the performance of the Chandrayana (lurnar penance) over and above the prescribed fine.
MANU & BEEF
We now come to the later period of the Dharma or Smriti literature. Of the Smirits, those of Manu and Yajnavalkya are regarded as the oldest and most important. And we had occasion to allude to these Smritis, while we were inquiring into the nature of the Madhuparka rite.
It will have been noticed that beef frequently formed an essential part of this ceremony. This conclusion is also in agreement with other prescriptions of these legislators whether connected with the subject of food or sin. It deserves to be noticed that in Chap. V. of his Smriti which deals with lawful and forbidden food, Manu nowhere. prohibits the use of beef as he would most certainly have done if it had been condemned in his time as it is to-day. On the contrary, in verse 18 of this Chapter (bhakshyan pancha-nakhesh-ahuh an-ushtrams-ch-aikatodatah), he like Vasishtha sanctions the consumption of the flesh of all domestic animals that have teeth in one jaw only, excepting camels. Under the category just referred to come not only camels but also cows. But whereas he has placed restrictions on the former, he has said nothing about the latter. Obviously, therefore, Manu allows the consumption of bovine flesh. This is not the conclusion which a heterodox person like myself draws, but is also what has been deduced by orthodox Pandits like Medhatithi and Raghavananda, who have commented on this passage from the Manusmriti. Thus the first of these says: Ushtra-varjita ekatodatah go-vy-aja mriga bhakshyah. And the second has: ekatodatah ekapanktidanta-yuktan gavadin. It is thus clear that both these commentators agree in saying that cow’s flesh for food is allowed by Manu. Secondly, students of Smriti literature are well aware that both Manu and Yajnavalkya distinguish between two kinds of sins: (1) mahapataka or mortal sins and (2) upapataka or minor offences, and that while ‘killing a Brahman’, drinking spirituous liquors and so forth are put by them under the first class, slaying kine is relegated to the second.
COW KILLING ALLOWED
This also indicates that these Hindu law-givers do not consider go-hatya as heinous and inexpeiable as it is to-day. It may, however, be asked why slaying kine was considered an upapatka at all it beef was allowed. The reply to this question has obviously to be given in the words of the Apastamba which we have considered above. love. Go-hatya is reprehensible only if a cow is killed without any good reason such as uncontrollable anger or desire to eating her flesh. It will be seen from the above discussion that go-hatya was not universally considered heinous or inexpiable even till the time of the Manu or the Yajnavalkya Smriti. When then it may be asked: did this offence come to be placed under the category of mahapataka as it undoubtedly is at the present day?
We have got the incontrovertible evidence of inscriptions to show that eaerly in the 5th century A.D. killing a cow was looked upon as an offence of the deepest turpitude, turpitude as deep as that involved in murdering a Brahman. We have thus a copper-plate inscription dated 465 A.D. and referring itself to the reign of Skandagupta of the Imperial Gupta dynasty. It registers a grant and ends with a verse saying: “Whosoever will transgress this grant that has been assigned (shall become as guilty as) the slayer of a cow, the slayer of a spiritual preceptor, (or) the slayer of a Brahman. A still earlier record placing go-hatya on the same fotting as brahma-hatya is that of Chandragupta II, grand-father of Skandagupta just mentioned. It bears the Gupta date 93, which is equivalent to 412 A.D. It is engraved on the railing which surrounds the celebrated Buddhist stupa at Sanchi, in Central India. This also speaks of a benefaction made by an officer of Chandragupta and ends as follows: tad-etat- pravrittam ya uchchhind-yat sa go- brahma-hatyaya samyukto bhavet panchabhis-ch-anantaryyair-iti, “Whosoever shall interfere with this arrangement – he shall become invested with (the guilt of) the slaughter of a cow or of a Brahman, and with (guilt of) the five anantarya”. Here the object of this statement is to threaten the resumer of the grant, be he a Brahmanist or a Buddhist, with the sins regarded as moral by each community. The anataryas are the five mahapatakas according to Buddhist theology. They are : matricide, parricide, killing an Arhat, shedding the blood of a Buddha, and causing a split among the priesthood. The mahapatakas with · which a Brahmanist is here threatened are only two : viz ., the killing of a cow and the murdering of a Brahmin. The latter is obviously a mahapataka as it is mentioned as such in all the Smritis, but the former has been specified only an upapataka by Apastamba, Manu, Yajnavalkya and so forth. But the very fact that it is here associated with brahma-hatya and both have been put on a par with the anantaryas of the Buddhists shows that in the beginning of the fifth century A.D. it was raised to the category of mahapatakas. Thus go- hatya must have come to be considered a mahapataka at least one century earlier, i.e. about the commencement of the fourth century A.D.
AHIMSA NOT IN HINDUISM
What could be the cause of this complete change in the popular mind in regard to the status of the cow? How could the view about the inviolability of the person of the cow and the bull completely dominate the Vedic Aryan practice of slaughtering the cow not only for sacrifice but also for food? How could go-hatya come to occupy exactly the same place in the popular estimation as Brahma- hatya? About the end of Lecture IV attention has been drawn to the prevalence of Vrishala culture represented in its religious aspect, by the Sramana sects such as Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivikism. One notable feature of this culture was Ahimsa, ‘abstention from injury to all creatures. To take one instance, Buddha like other Sramana teachers was strongly opposed to the slaughter of the animals in general and of cows in particular. Thus Samyutta- Nikaya (III 1.9) informs us that once a great sacrifice was being arranged for Pasenadi, the Kosala king. Five hundred bulls, five hundred calves and many heifers, goats and rams were led to the pillar to be sacrificed. On coming to know about it, the Buddha burst out saying: “Asvamedha, Purushamedha, Vajapeya and such fussy rites can never bring a rich result, because diverse goats and sheep and kine are slain. To such a rite never repair the noble seers who walk the perfect way.” This is a protest against himsa in general. But a protest against cow-killing in particular is contained in the Brahman dhammikasutta of the Sutta-nipata. In this Sutta, Buddha contrasts the profound self- abnegation of the Brahmans long anterior to his time with the ever-waxing cupidity of the Brahmans who were his contemporaries or lived shortly before his time. Some of the concluding verses may be translated here:
24. And they having thus received wealth wished for a store, and the desire of those who had given way to (their) wishes increased still more; they then, in this matter, having composed hymns, went again to okkaka ….
And then the king, the lord of chariots, instructed by the Brahmans, caused many hundred thousand cows to be slain in offerings.
25. The cows, that are like goats, do not hurt any one with their feet or with either of their horns, they are tender, and yield vessels (of milk) – seizing them by the horns the king caused them to be slain with a weapon.
26. Then the gods, the forefathers, Indra, the Asuras, and the Rakkasas cried out : “This is injustice,’ because of the weapon falling on the cows.
28. This injustice of (using) violence that has come down (to us), was old, innocent (cows) are slain, the sacrificing (priests) have fallen from the Dhamma”.
BUDDHA’S ROLE
Can there be a more forcible protest against cow-slaughter than this one couched in the language of Buddha? I have also pointed out elsewhere that prior to the rise of the Sungas the greater portion of India was held by the Mauryas, the Nandas, the Nagas and so forth who were adherents of one Sramana sect or another and not one of whom performed Brahmanical rites and sacrifices which constituted the essence of Brahmanism. It is true that, with the advent of the Sungas to power, there was a revival of Brahmanism. But Buddhism and Jainishm had already spread over the whole of India with virulence and thoroughness. They could not but have deeply impressed the mentally of the people and changed their outlook on life to a large extent. It is therefore no wonder, if by the fourth century A.D. the killing of the cow was considered to be as heinous a sin as the murder of a Brahman, even by the followers of Brahmanism, although it had all along allowed the slaughter of the bovine species for the purposes of sacrifice and food. This ascendancy of the Sramana sects made itself felt on Hinduism from the Gupta period onwards in a variety of ways. If we open e.g. Chapter V. of the Manu-smriti we shall find the first fity-four verses devoted to the description at length of ‘lawful and forbidden food’, where minute details have been given in regard to what kind of bird and animal flesh could be eatern. But the twelve verses following it dwell upon the merits of abstaining from eating meat and are evidently later additions. Two of these have been given in regard to what kind of bird and animal flesh could be eaten. But the twelve verses following it dwell upon the merits of abstaining from eating meat and are evidently later additions. Two of these have the following :
(V. 48) “Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures; injury to sentient beings is detrimental to heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun meat”, (V. 53) “He, who during a hundred years annually offers a horse-sacrifice, and he, who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct).”
These verses clearly show that the Ahimsa dharma of the Sramana sects was producing an impression on the followers of Brahmanism and their law books. The same is the case with the shaving of widow’s head which seems to have been adopted from the nuns of Sramana sects, – either Buddhism or Jainism. The older Smritis, including Manu and Yajnavalkya recommend Brahmacharya or celibacy only to the widows. The later Smritis, such as Vishnu and Narada, recommend either Brahmacharya or Suttee. Still later Smritis recommend Suttee only. But no genuine Smriti entertains the idea of shaving her head. This custom appears to have been adopted at a very late period from the nuns of Buddhism or Jainism who relinguished all dress and all ornamentation and put on ochre-coloured clothes after shaving their heads. The influence of these Sramana sects is far deeper than is generally imagined, because even Buddha the founder of Buddhism and Rishabhadeva the originator of Jainism are looked upon as incarnations of Vishnu by Hinduism.
