The first section of the vidyâ tells us that Jânasruti bestowed much
wealth and food; later on he is represented as sending his door-keeper
on an errand; and in the end, as bestowing on Raikva many villages--
which shows him to be a territorial lord. All these circumstances
suggest Jânasruti's being a Kshattriya, and hence not a member of the
lowest caste.--The above Sûtra having declared that the kshattriya-hood
of Jânasruti is indicated in the introductory legend, the next Sûtra
shows that the same circumstance is indicated in the concluding legend.
35. On account of the inferential sign further on, together with
Kaitraratha.
The kshattriya-hood of Jânasruti is further to be accepted on account of
the Kshattriya Abhipratârin Kaitraratha, who is mentioned further on in
this very same Samvargavidyâ which Raikva imparts to Jânasruti.--But why?--
As follows. The section beginning 'Once a Brahmakârin begged of Saunaka
Kâpeya and Abhipratârin Kâkshaseni while being waited on at their meal,'
and ending 'thus do we, O Brahmakârin, meditate on that being,' shows
Kâpeya, Abhipratârin, and the Brahmakârin to be connected with the
Samvarga-vidyâ. Now Abhipratârin is a Kshattriya, the other two are
Brâhmanas. This shows that there are connected with the vidyâ, Brâhmanas,
and from among non-Brâhmanas, a Kshattriya only, but not a Sûdra. It
therefore appears appropriate to infer that the person, other than the
Brâhmana Raikva, who is likewise connected with this vidyâ, viz.
Jânasruti, is likewise a Kshattriya, not a Sûdra.--But how do we know
that Abhipratârin is a Kaitraratha and a Kshattriya? Neither of these
circumstances is stated in the legend in the Samvarga-vidyâ! To this
question the Sûtra replies, 'on account of the inferential mark.' From
the inferential mark that Saunaka Kâpeya and Abhipratârin Kâkshaseni are
said to have been sitting together at a meal we understand that there is
some connexion between Abhipratârin and the Kâpeyas. Now another
scriptural passage runs as follows: 'The Kâpeyas made Kaitraratha
perform that sacrifice' (Tând Brâ. XX, 12, 5), and this shows that one
connected with the Kâpeyas was a Kaitraratha; and a further text shows
that a Kaitraratha is a Kshattriya. 'from him there was descended a
Kaitraratha who was a prince.' All this favours the inference that
Abhipratârin was a Kaitraratha and a Kshattriya.
So far the Sûtras have shown that there is no inferential mark to prove
what is contradicted by reasoning, viz. the qualification of the Sûdras.
The next Sûtra declares that the non-qualification of the Sûdra proved
by reasoning is confirmed by Scripture and Smriti.
36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications, and on
account of the declaration of their absence.
In sections the purport of which is to give instruction about Brahman
the ceremony of initiation is referred to, 'I will initiate you; he
initiated him' (Ch. Up. IV, 4). And at the same time the absence of such
ceremonies in the case of Sûdras is stated: 'In the Sûdra there is not
any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony' (Manu X, 126); and 'The
fourth caste is once born, and not fit for any ceremony' (Manu X, 4).
37. And on account of the procedure, on the ascertainment of the non-
being of that.
That a Sûdra is not qualified for knowledge of Brahman appears from that
fact also that as soon as Gautama has convinced himself that Jâbâla, who
wishes to become his pupil, is not a Sûdra, he proceeds to teach him the
knowledge of Brahman.
38. And on account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and
performance of (Vedic) matter.
The Sûdra is specially forbidden to hear and study the Veda and to
perform the things enjoined in it. 'For a Sûdra is like a cemetery,
therefore the Veda must not be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra;'
'Therefore the Sûdra is like a beast, unfit for sacrifices.' And he who
does not hear the Veda recited cannot learn it so as to understand and
perform what the Veda enjoins. The prohibition of hearing thus implies
the prohibition of understanding and whatever depends on it.