162 A Disputation respecting Caste, by Asuu Guosia. 
the Vedas; for, it is written in the Vedas, that “the sun and the moon, 
Inpra, and other deities, were at first quadrupeds; and some other deities 
were first animals and afterwards became gods; even the vilest of the vile 
(Swapak) have become gods.” From these words it is clear that Brahman- 
hood is not life (jiva), a position which is further proved from these words 
of the Mahabharata: “Seven hunters and ten deer, of the hill of Kalinjal, 
a goose of the lake Mansaravara, and a chakwa of Saradwipa, all these were 
born as Brahmans, in the Kurukshetra (near Dehli), and became very 
learned in the Vedas.” It is also said by Manu, in his Dharma Sastra, 
“Whatever Brahman learned in the four Vedas, with their ang and 
upang, shall take charity from a Sudra, shall for twelve births be an ass, 
and for sixty births a hog, and seventy births a dog.” From these words 
it is clear that Brahmanhood is not life; for, if it were, how could such 
things be? 
If, again, you say that Brahmanhood depends on parentage or birth 
(jati); that is, that to be a Brahman one must be born of Brahman parents, 
—this notion is at variance with the known passage of the Smritti, that 
Acuata Mont was born of an elephant, and Cresa Princata of an owl, and 
Acastya Muni from the Agasti flower, and Coustxa Muni from the Cusa 
grass, and Carita from a monkey, and Gautam Risui from a creeper that 
entwined a Saul tree, and Drona Acuarya from an earthen pot, and 
Tarrrirt Risut from a partridge, and Parswa Rama from dust, and Srinea 
Risur from a deer, and Vyasa Munr from a fisherwoman, and Kosuixa 
Muni from a female Sudra, and Viswa Mirra from a Chandalni, and 
VastsHtHA Muni from a strumpet. Not one of them had a Brahman 
mother, and yet all were notoriously called Brahmans; whence I infer, that 
the title is a distinction of popular origin, and cannot be traced to parentage 
from written authorities. 
Should you again say, that whoever is born of a Brahman father or 
mother is a Brahman, then the child of a slave even may hecome a 
Brahman ; a consequence to which I have no objection, but which will not 
consort with your notions, I fancy. 
Do you say, that he who is sprang of Brahman parents is a Brahman ? 
Still 1 object that, since you must mean pure and true Brahmans, in such 
case the breed of Brahmans must be at an end; since the fathers of the 
present race of Brahmans are not, any of them, free from the suspicion of 
having wives, who notoriously commit adultery with Sudras. Now, if the 
