Could ?ūdras read Vedas?

As per ?āstras, a ?ūdra is not eligible for the study of Vedas. In this previous statement, ‘the study of Vedas’ is the translated version of the original Sanskrit expression ‘vedādhyayana’ or the adhyayana of Vedas. To understand the ineligibility of ?ūdra in the said case, we would need to first understand as to what counts and what does not count as adhyayana of Vedas. As the erstwhile pontiff of the ?ri?geri Pī?ha ?rīmad Abhinava Vidyātīrtha Svāmī has opined in the 23rd chapter of his book ‘Exalting Elucidations’, “Vedādhyayana is characterised by a ?i?ya listening to his Guru reciting the Veda and then repeating the same.” He further says, “It is not learning with the aid of recorded sound.” In chapter 24 of the same book, he cites Kumārila Bha??a to say that all study of the Veda is preceded by learning from a Guru (vedasyādhyayana? sarva? gurvadhyayanapūrvaka?).

The 14th century Vedic scholar Sāya?ācārya, in his ?gvedabhā?yabhūmikā says that the adhyayanavidhi (svādhyāyo’dhyetavya?) expresses that Vedic study (svādhyāya) becomes sanctified by adhyayana through the exclusion of other methods of study like reading books, etc. (adhyayanavidhi?ca likhitapā?hādivyāv?ttyā adhyayanasa?sk?tatva? svādhyāyasya gamayati). ?rīmad Abhinava Vidyātīrtha Svāmī excluded the learning of Veda from audio recordings, because the questioner asked about it directly. Sāyā?ācārya’s statement that adhyayanavidhi excludes reading of books, etc. for Vedic study can be combined with ?rīmad Abhinava Vidyātīrtha Svāmī’s statement of exclusion of audio recordings. Hence, methods other than the formally learning of Vedas from a Guru, via Upanayana sa?skāra etc., is not recognised as adhyayana of Vedas.

What does this imply? It implies that there are two ways of studying the Vedas; one is learning it from a Guru via Upanayana, etc., and the other is learning it through reading books, audio recordings, etc. The former is termed as adhyayana of Vedas, whereas the latter is not. This is why in his Bhāmatī commentary on Brahmasūtra-?ā?karabhā?ya (1.3.34), Vācaspatimi?ra considers the option of ?ūdras learning Vedas via reading books, etc. and hence him becoming eligible for Brahmavidyā. This option is however refuted by the commentator, not by citing scriptural passages prohibiting application of such methods, but by stating that such methods wouldn’t lead ?ūdras to receive the fruits of adhyayana, namely abhyudaya and ni??reyasa. Such fruits shall be received only by those who study Vedas via Upanayana, etc. (pustakādipa?hitasvādhyāyajanyo’rthāvabodho na ?ūdrā?ā? phalāya kalpate)

On the same passage of Brahmasūtra-?ā?karabhā?ya, ānandagiri comments that although sin would be incurred on the part of a ?ūdra studying Vedas via reading books, etc., he would still do it because the knowledge gained by it would destroy that sin (na ca ni?iddhādhyayanād duritodayabhayānna pravartate likhitapā?hādijanitavidyayā tannibarha?āt). He too does not cite any passages from scriptures prohibiting such an endeavour by the ?ūdra. In Rāmānanda Sarasvatī’s commentary on Brahmasūtra (1.3.34), the same option has been considered. Its effectiveness towards brahmavidyā has been rejected by saying that only the Vedic adhyayana which is done with the Guru is effective towards brahmavidyā (na ca ?ūdrasyāpi likhitapā?hādinā vedaprāptiriti yuktam/ gurūpasadanapūrvakādhyayanasa?sk?tavedasyaiva brahmavidyādyupakārakatvāt). Here too, a ?ūdra’s study of Vedas via reading books, etc. has not been said to be prohibited or punishable as per some scripture, but is merely rejected from the point of view of its effectiveness.

You may ask about the punishment or expiation regarding a ?ūdra learning Vedas as mentioned in Gautamadharmasūtra (2.3.4 or 12.4). The commentaries of Maskari and Haradattami?ra on that specific passage throw some light on how to interpret it. The word ‘Veda’ in the said passage of Gautamadharmasūtra is understood by Maskari as the ‘Veda along with its supporting limbs’ (veda? sā?gam). First of all, such a study or learning of the Veda would have to be done via hearing it (upa?rutya). The word ‘udāhara?a’ is understood by both Maskari and Haradattami?ra to be ‘reciting Vedas along with Dvijas’. The word ‘dhāra?a’ is understood by both to be ‘reciting Veda independently (of Dvijas)’. The purview of this passage is the hearing of Vedas’ recital from a person with a desire to learn Vedas, and the recital of Vedas. It seems, that because of this line of interpretation, at least a section of learned Vedic scholars like Vācaspatimi?ra, ānandagiri and Rāmānanda Sarasvatī did not mention that a ?ūdra performing study of Vedas via reading books, etc. is prohibited. They seem to simply take it as an open option, which is not prohibited as such. They reject it only from the point of view of its effectiveness. It is also worth noticing that they do not refute it also by saying that ?ūdras aren’t educated enough and hence cannot learn Vedas even by reading books.

It is worth noting that certain old traditional scholars like ānandagiri (on ādi ?a?karācārya’s comm. on Brahmasūtra 1.3.38), Rāghavānanda (on Manusm?ti 1.91), Advaitānanda (Brahmavidyābhara?a 1.3.38), Rāmaki?kara (Brahmām?tavar?i?ī 1.3.38), ?rīdeva (Kātīya?rautasūtra 1.1.6), Appayya Dīk?ita (Nyāyarak?āma?i 1.3.38) take the so-called punishment of Gautamadharmasūtra (2.3.4 or 12.4) to be prāya?citta (expiation) and not a punishment. It means that the so-called punishment merely tells that a ?ūdra should not indulge in traditional Vedādhyayana, or else he would incur a great sin. Hence, these traditional and chronologically old scholars, did not see it as a punishment at all.

A?vagho?a in his Vajrasūcī, mentions that there were ?ūdras who were learned in Vedas (d??yante ca kvacit ?ūdrā api vedavyākara?amīmā?sāsā?khyavai?e?ikalagnājīvakādisarva?āstrārthavida?). It could be that they learnt Vedas via reading books, etc. This could also be the reason why Bhāsarvaj?a in his Nyāyabhū?a?a rejects the idea that ?ūdras learnt scriptures of Jainas, etc. because they weren’t allowed adhyayana of Vedas, although they desired it because they knew of the positive effect it had on Dvijas. It seems that he took it for granted that they could access the Vedas from books, etc., and mere exclusion from adhyayana (systematic study of Vedas from a Guru via Upanayana, etc.) does not mean a complete ban on accessing Vedas. This is why he cites another reason for ?ūdras (and others) learning the scriptures of Jainas, etc. The reason he gives is that there is no rule regarding adhyayana and adhyāpana of those scriptures.

Such being the case, it seems that at least some of the ancient and medieval scholars of Vedas and other ?āstras thought that a ?ūdra could study Vedas via reading books, etc. and that such a method was not scripturally punishable or banned.